ReviewEvidence-based complementary and alternative medicine : eCAM2017
Therapeutic Risk and Benefits of Concomitantly Using Herbal Medicines and Conventional Medicines: From the Perspectives of Evidence Based on Randomized Controlled Trials and Clinical Risk Management.
Review in Evidence-based complementary and alternative medicine : eCAM, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 23 citations in OpenAlex.
- Concurrent Use of Prescription Drugs and Herbal Medicinal Products in Older Adults: A Systematic Review.Drugs & aging · 2017Pooled it
- Safety Issues of Herb-Warfarin Interactions.Current drug metabolism · 2024Review
- Effect of Uncaria tomentosa aqueous extract on the response to palmitate-induced lipotoxicity in cultured skeletal muscle cells.BMC complementary medicine and therapies · 2023Article
- Article
- Food-drug interactions precipitated by fruit juices other than grapefruit juice: An update review.Journal of food and drug analysis · 2018Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Despite increased awareness of the potential of herb-drug interactions (HDIs), the lack of rigorous clinical evidence regarding the significance provides a challenge for clinicians and consumers to make rational decisions about the safe combination of herbal and conventional medicines. This review addressed HDIs based on evidence from randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Literature was identified by performing a PubMed search till January 2017. Risk description and clinical risk management were described. Among 74 finally included RCTs, 17 RCTs (22.97%) simply addressed pharmacodynamic HDIs. Fifty-seven RCTs (77.03%) investigated pharmacokinetic HDIs and twenty-eight of them showed potential or actual clinical relevance. The extent of an HDI may be associated with the factors such as pharmacogenomics, dose of active ingredients in herbs, time course of interaction, characteristics of the object drugs (e.g., administration routes and pharmacokinetic profiles), modification of herbal prescription compositions, and coexistence of inducers and inhibitors. Clinical professionals should enhance risk management on HDIs such as increasing awareness of potential changes in therapeutic risk and benefits, inquiring patients about all currently used conventional medicines and herbal medicines and supplements, automatically detecting highly substantial significant HDI by computerized reminder system, selecting the alternatives, adjusting dose, reviewing the appropriateness of physician orders, educating patients to monitor for drug-interaction symptoms, and paying attention to follow-up visit and consultation.
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.