ArticleClinical pharmacology : advances and applications2017
Retrospective analysis of the effects of a highly standardized mixture of
Article in Clinical pharmacology : advances and applications, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.
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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- Pooled it
- The therapeutic effects of silymarin for patients with glucose/lipid metabolic dysfunction: A meta-analysis.Medicine · 2020Pooled it
- In silico evaluation of berberine and silymarin against metabolic targets: a rationale for OMICS technology-based co-formulation.In silico pharmacology · 2025Article
- The role of selected nutraceuticals in management of prediabetes and diabetes: An updated review of the literature.Phytotherapy research : PTR · 2022Review
- Phytopharmacology and Clinical Updates ofFrontiers in pharmacology · 2020Review
- Perspectives on Functional Red Mold Rice: Functional Ingredients, Production, and Application.Frontiers in microbiology · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
background
aimThe effects of a cholesterol-lowering supplement (Berberol
methodsThe clinical role of BSM in naïve and in statin-intolerant patients was retrospectively evaluated and the effects observed were compared with those obtained in patients without treatment or treated with lovastatin.
resultsTotal cholesterol, low density lipoprotein, and triglyceride levels were approximately 4%, 6%, and 11% lower, respectively, and the creatine phosphokinase increase was reduced in patients treated with BSM compared to those treated with lovastatin. Similar results were also obtained in statin-intolerant subjects where BSM was administered as add-on therapy to ezetimibe or fenofibrate.
conclusionBSM is a food supplement potentially useful 1) as a primary intervention in low-cardiovascular-risk subjects with dyslipidemia; 2) as add-on therapy in mildly statin-intolerant patients; and 3) in dyslipidemic patients with a negative perception of statins who prefer a treatment seen as natural.
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.