Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29034183›Full record

ReviewJournal of traditional and complementary medicine2017

Alzheimer Disease: Clues from traditional and complementary medicine.

Edwin L Cooper, Melissa J Ma

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Journal of traditional and complementary medicine, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 32 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
32citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

32 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Herbal drugs and natural bioactive products as potential therapeutics: A review on pro-cognitives and brain boosters perspectives.Saudi pharmaceutical journal : SPJ : the official publication of the Saudi Pharmaceutical Society · 2021
    Review
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Review
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Edwin L CooperLaboratory of Comparative Immunology, Department of Neurobiology, David Geffen School of Medicine, UCLA, Los Angeles, CA 90095-1763, USA.
Melissa J MaLaboratory of Comparative Immunology, Department of Neurobiology, David Geffen School of Medicine, UCLA, Los Angeles, CA 90095-1763, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Despite modern medicine's incredible innovation and resulting accumulation of valuable knowledge, many of the world's most problematic diseases such as Alzheimer Disease (AD) still lack effective cures and treatments. Western medicine has revealed many genetic, cellular, and molecular processes that characterize AD such as protein aggregation and inflammation. As the need for novel and effective treatments increases, researchers have turned towards traditional medicine as a resource. Modern, evidence based research examining traditional and complementary remedies for AD has generated promising results within the last decade. Animal based products inhibiting cellular toxicity, anti-inflammatory nutraceuticals such as omega-3 fatty acids, and plant based compounds derived from herbal medicine demonstrate viability as neuroprotective treatments and possible application in developing pharmaceuticals. Analysis of antioxidant, anti-inflammatory, and neuroprotective phytochemicals used in various traditional medicines around the world reveal potential to ameliorate and prevent the devastating neurodegeneration observed in AD.

Indexed as

AlzheimereCAMInflammationTCMTreatment

Identifiers

PMID29034183
PMCPMC5634730

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.