Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29989061›Full record

ReviewIntegrative medicine research2018

Integration of botanicals in contemporary medicine: road blocks, checkpoints and go-ahead signals.

Neha Arora Chugh, Shreya Bali, Ashwani Koul

Open access · goldAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Integrative medicine research, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 19 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
19citing papers in PubMed
12.8field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
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

19 citing papers in PubMed, 62 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Review
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Extract ofIBRO neuroscience reports · 2022
    Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. BMC complementary medicine and therapies · 2021
    Article
  12. Article
  13. The Use ofBiomolecules · 2020
    Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. 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

3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Neha Arora ChughDepartment of Biophysics, Panjab University, Chandigarh, India.
Shreya BaliDepartment of Biophysics, Panjab University, Chandigarh, India.
Ashwani KoulDepartment of Biophysics, Panjab University, Chandigarh, India.
Panjab University · IN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The use of botanicals for maintaining good health and preventing diseases is undisputed. The claimed health benefits of natural health products and herbal medicines are based on traditional claims, positive results obtained in preclinical studies and early phase clinical trials that are not backed by safety and efficacy evidences approved by regulatory agencies. Although, the popularity of botanicals is growing, health care practitioners of modern medicine seldom recommend their use because of ill equipped database of their safety and potency. This review discusses problems that preclude botanicals from integrating into the mainstream contemporary therapeutics and cues that provide impetus for their realisation.

Indexed as

BotanicalsComplementary and alternative medicineContemporary medicine

Identifiers

PMID29989061
PMCPMC6035497
OpenAlexW2795088272

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.