Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31526860›Full record

ReviewJournal of ethnopharmacology2020

Best practice in research - Overcoming common challenges in phytopharmacological research.

Michael Heinrich, Giovanni Appendino, Thomas Efferth, Robert Fürst, Angelo A Izzo, Oliver Kayser, John M Pezzuto, Alvaro Viljoen

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Journal of ethnopharmacology, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 239 papers, 18 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
239citing papers in PubMed, 18 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

239 citing papers in PubMed, 18 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Wild thyme (Frontiers in nutrition · 2024
    Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Pooled it
  9. Pooled it
  10. Pooled it
  11. Pooled it
  12. Appraising the therapeutical potentials ofFrontiers in pharmacology · 2022
    Pooled it
  13. Pooled it
  14. Pooled it
  15. The Invasive SpeciesFrontiers in pharmacology · 2022
    Pooled it
  16. Pooled it
  17. Pooled it
  18. Pooled it
  19. Effects ofFrontiers in pharmacology · 2026
    Trial
  20. Trial

179 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors.

Michael HeinrichPharmacognosy and Phytotherapy, UCL School of Pharmacy, 29 - 39 Brunswick Sq., London, WC1N 1AX, UK. Electronic address: m.heinrich@ucl.ac.uk.
Giovanni AppendinoDipartimento di Scienze del Farmaco, Largo Donegani 2, 28100, Novara, Italy. Electronic address: giovanni.appendino@uniupo.it.
Thomas EfferthDepartment of Pharmaceutical Biology, Institute of Pharmacy and Biochemistry, Johannes Gutenberg University, Staudinger Weg 5, 55128, Mainz, Germany. Electronic address: efferth@uni-mainz.de.
Robert FürstInstitute of Pharmaceutical Biology, Faculty of Biochemistry, Chemistry and Pharmacy, Goethe University Frankfurt, Max-von-Laue-Str. 9, 60438, Frankfurt, Germany. Electronic address: fuerst@em.uni-frankfurt.de.
Angelo A IzzoDepartment of Pharmacy, School of Medicine and Surgery, University of Naples Federico II, Via D Montesano 49, Naples, Italy. Electronic address: aaizzo@unina.it.
Oliver KayserTechnical Biochemistry, TU Dortmund University, Emil-Figge-Strasse 66, 44227, Dortmund, Germany. Electronic address: oliver.kayser@tu-dortmund.de.
John M PezzutoArnold & Marie Schwartz College of Pharmacy and Health Sciences, Long Island University, 75 DeKalb Avenue, Brooklyn, NY, USA. Electronic address: John.Pezzuto@liu.edu.
Alvaro ViljoenDepartment of Pharmaceutical Sciences, Faculty of Science, Tshwane University of Technology, Private Bag X680, Pretoria, 0001, South Africa; SAMRC Herbal Drugs Research Unit, Faculty of Science, Tshwane University of Technology, Private Bag X680, Pretoria, 0001, South Africa. Electronic address: ViljoenAM@tut.ac.za.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe pharmacology, toxicology and pharmacokinetics of bioactive preparations derived from natural sources has become a flourishing field of research. However, researching complex extracts and natural products faces numerous challenges. More broadly in recent years the critique of pharmacological research, and specifically its design, the methods used and reporting has intensified.

aimsThis consensus document provides a perspective on what constitutes best practice in pharmacological research on bioactive preparations derived from natural sources, providing a perspective of what the leading specialist journals in the field consider as the core characteristics of good research. APPROACH ('METHODS'): The editors-in-chief of seven journals developed this best practice statement in an iterative process. A first draft of the guidelines (prepared by MH) was then discussed and amended by the other editors. OUTCOMES: Core to this contribution is a table which provides detailed advice including simple points like a use of appropriate controls and the full taxonomic validity of the material under investigation (see also below), to the relevance of the model for the question being researched (e.g., can specific in silico or in vitro models really address the species anti-inflammatory activity?). Therefore, obviously, researchers must pay detailed attention to reporting and discussing such studies. This information must be discussed critically (as much as it is possible based on the published papers) in terms of their scientific quality and validity. While these points are obvious, as editors, we are aware that they are often not properly implemented.

conclusionWe call for an approach which incorporates a careful design, meticulous execution and a detailed reporting of studies focusing on the pharmacology/bioactivity of bioactive preparations. Clearly testable research questions must be developed and investigated experimentally. As the founder of pharmacology Claude Bernard put it already in 1865: '…. either the experimenter's hypothesis will be disproved or it will be proved by experiment. When experiment disproves its preconceived ideas, the experimenter must discard or modify it.'

Indexed as

Biological ProductsBiomedical ResearchHumansPlants, MedicinalBiological Products

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.