ReviewRecent patents on drug delivery & formulation2019
Scientific Papers and Patents on Substances with Unproven Effects. Part 2.
Review in Recent patents on drug delivery & formulation, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 17 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Several examples are discussed in this review, where substances without proven effects were proposed for practical use within the scope of evidence-based medicines. The following is discussed here: generalizations of the hormesis concept and its use in support of homeopathy; phytoestrogens and soy products potentially having feminizing effects; glycosaminoglycans for the treatment of osteoarthritis and possibilities of their replacement by diet modifications; flavonoids recommended for the treatment of chronic venous insufficiency and varicose veins; acetylcysteine as a mucolytic agent and its questionable efficiency especially by an oral intake; stem cells and cell therapies. In conclusion, placebo therapies can be beneficial and ethically justifiable but it is not a sufficient reason to publish biased information. Importantly, placebo must be devoid of adverse effects, otherwise, it is named pseudo-placebo. Therapeutic methods with unproven effects should be tested in high-quality research shielded from the funding bias. Some issues discussed in this review are not entirely clear, and the arguments provided here can initiate a constructive discussion.
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.