Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32055724›Full record

ArticleHeliyon2020

Anthelminthic medicinal plants in veterinary ethnopharmacology: A network meta-analysis following the PRISMA-P and PROSPERO recommendations.

Luigino Calzetta, Elena Pistocchini, Antonio Leo, Paola Roncada, Beatrice Ludovica Ritondo, Ernesto Palma, David di Cave, Domenico Britti

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Heliyon, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed
3.5field-weighted citation impact, top 6% 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

9 citing papers in PubMed, 23 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. In Vitro Anthelminthic Efficacy of Aqueous Pomegranate (Pathogens (Basel, Switzerland) · 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

8 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Luigino CalzettaDepartment of Experimental Medicine, University of Rome "Tor Vergata", Rome, Italy.
Elena PistocchiniUnit of Laboratory Medicine, Veterinary Hospital Gregorio VII, Rome, Italy.
Antonio LeoDepartment of Health Sciences, University of Catanzaro "Magna Graecia", Catanzaro, Italy.
Paola RoncadaDepartment of Health Sciences, University of Catanzaro "Magna Graecia", Catanzaro, Italy.
Beatrice Ludovica RitondoDepartment of Experimental Medicine, University of Rome "Tor Vergata", Rome, Italy.
Ernesto PalmaDepartment of Health Sciences, University of Catanzaro "Magna Graecia", Catanzaro, Italy.
David di CaveDepartment of Clinical Sciences and Translational Medicine, University of Rome "Tor Vergata", Rome, Italy.
Domenico BrittiDepartment of Health Sciences, University of Catanzaro "Magna Graecia", Catanzaro, Italy.
Magna Graecia University · ITUniversity of Rome Tor Vergata · IT

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Medicinal plants may be effective against helminthic infestation in animals, but to date few studies have investigated the real impact of anthelminthic medicinal plants in veterinary ethnopharmacology. The aim of this study was to assess the geographical use of anthelminthic medicinal plants in livestock in European Union (EU), and to quantify the anthelminthic efficacy of medicinal plants in comparison with anthelminthic drugs. Surveys on the use of anthelminthic traditional medicinal plants in livestock in the EU were included in the qualitative synthesis. Studies that investigated the efficacy of anthelminthic traditional medicinal plants in animals, compared with negative control and/or anthelminthic drugs, were included in the quantitative synthesis (network meta-analysis). Twelve surveys (9 in Italy, 2 in Spain, 1 in Austria) reported the use of anthelminthic medicinal plants in livestock living in EU Countries. Data obtained from 256 animals and extracted from 6 studies were included in the network meta-analysis. Medicinal plants and drugs were more effective than negative control (standardized mean difference [SMD]: -0.60 95%CrI -0.88 to -0.31, -0.73 95%CrI -1.08 to -0.38, respectively, P < 0.001). Overall, no difference was detected between anthelminthic medicinal plants and anthelminthic drugs, namely albendazole, ivermectin, fenbendazole, and doramectin (SMD: 0.26 95%CrI -0.02 to 0.55, P > 0.05). The most effective anthelminthic medicinal plants were

Indexed as

AnthelminthicBioinformaticsDrugsEcologyLivestockMedicinal plantsMicrobiologyPlant biologySystematicsVeterinary ethnopharmacology

Identifiers

PMID32055724
PMCPMC7005420
OpenAlexW3004831286

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.