SynthesisMedicine2016
Ginseng for managing menopausal woman's health: A systematic review of double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trials.
Synthesis in Medicine, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
10 citing papers in PubMed, 34 citations in OpenAlex.
- Challenges in phytotherapy research.Frontiers in pharmacology · 2023Article
- Anti-fatigue effect fromAcupuncture and herbal medicine · 2022Review
- Ginseng for the Treatment of Chronic Fatigue Syndrome: A Systematic Review of Clinical Studies.Global advances in health and medicine · 2022Article
- Effect of Fenugreek on vasomotor symptoms in menopausal women: A protocol for systematic review and meta-analysis.Medicine · 2020Article
- Investigation of the role of herbal medicine, acupressure, and acupuncture in the menopausal symptoms: An evidence-based systematic review study.Journal of family medicine and primary care · 2020Review
- A Nutraceutical Approach to Menopausal Complaints.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2019Review
- Red ginseng monograph.Journal of ginseng research · 2018Review
- Understanding the complex relationships underlying hot flashes: a Bayesian network approach.Menopause (New York, N.Y.) · 2018Article
- Female Sexual Dysfunction: Natural and Complementary Treatments.Focus (American Psychiatric Publishing) · 2018Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 4 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe aim of this systematic review was to update, complete, and critically evaluate the evidence from placebo-controlled randomized clinical trials (RCTs) of ginseng for managing menopausal women's health.
methodsWe searched the literature using 13 databases (MEDLINE, AMED, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library, 6 Korean Medical, and 3 Chinese Databases) from their inception to July 2016 and included all double-blind RCTs that compared any type of ginseng with a placebo control in postmenopausal women. The methodological quality of all studies was assessed using a Cochrane risk of bias tool.
resultsTen RCTs met our inclusion criteria. Most RCTs had unclear risk of bias. One RCT did not show a significant difference in hot flash frequency between Korean red ginseng (KRG) and placebo. The second RCT reported positive effects of KRG on menopausal symptoms. The third RCT found beneficial effects of ginseng (Ginsena) on depression, well-being, and general health. Four RCTs failed to show significant differences in various hormones between KRG and placebo controls except dehydroepiandrosterone. Two other RCTs failed to show effects of KRG on endometrial thickness in menopausal women. The other RCT also failed to show the effects of American ginseng on oxidative stress markers and other antioxidant enzymes.
conclusionOur systematic review provided positive evidence of ginseng for sexual function and KRG for sexual arousal and total hot flashes score in menopausal women. However, the results of KRG or ginseng failed to show specific effects on hot flash frequency, hormones, biomarkers, or endometrial thickness. The level of evidence for these findings was low because of unclear risk of bias.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.