Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30519527›Full record

ArticleIntegrative medicine research2018

Efficacy of mace (Arils of

A G F Najeeya, Arshiya Sultana

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article 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 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
0.2field-weighted citation impact, top 41% 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

2 citing papers in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Anti-Evidence-based complementary and alternative medicine : eCAM · 2020
    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 at 1 institution in 1 country.

A G F NajeeyaKegalle Ayurvedic Hospital, Sri Lanka.
Arshiya SultanaDepartment of Amraze Niswan wa Ilmul Qabalat (Gynecology and Obstetrics), National Institute of Unani Medicine, Bengaluru, India.
Regional Research Institute of Unani Medicine · IN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundIt is not only to evaluate the efficacy and safety of mace (Arils of

methodsA prospective, single-blind randomized controlled study was conducted. Patients (

resultsAfter treatment (at third month), the patient reported cure for PGI-I and PGI-S was 46.66% and 90% for the mace group, whereas 0% and 16.66% for the control group, respectively (

conclusionMace is effective and safe for the subjective improvement of mixed urinary incontinence symptoms and for the improvement of women's HRQoL than the placebo.

Indexed as

Aril of Myristica fragrans Houtt (mace)BisbasahMixed urinary incontinencePelvic floor muscle trainingSalas al-bawl

Identifiers

PMID30519527
PMCPMC6260249
OpenAlexW2898366815

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.