Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32857308›Full record

ArticleEnvironmental science and pollution research international2021

Assessment of essential and non-essential elements in selected traditional medicines from India, Ghana and China.

Eva T Gyamfi

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Environmental science and pollution research international, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
–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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. 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

1 author.

Eva T GyamfiDepartment of Earth and Environmental Sciences, Macquarie University, Sydney, NSW, 2109, Australia. eva.gyamfi@hdr.mq.edu.au.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-4189-6600

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Traditional medicine (TM) also known as folk medicine consists of medical knowledge systems that were developed over generations in various countries before the era of modern medicine. Over the last few years, there has been a shift in universal trend from modern medicine to TM because it is believed that these medicines are non-toxic to humans, have little to no side-effects, are readily available and affordable. The purpose of this study was to investigate the essential and non-essential elemental concentrations of ayurvedic medicines (AM), Ghanaian traditional medicines (GTM) and Chinese traditional medicines (CTM). The results indicate that the mean elemental concentrations in TM varied greatly. The mean concentrations of copper and mercury in AM, GTM and CTM ranged from 4 to 45 mg/kg and 0.01 to 2 mg/kg, respectively. Multivariate statistical analyses applied to recognise inter-element associations indicated that at 0.05 significant level, there was a positive correlation between elements suggesting they may have originated from the same source. The study concludes by highlighting the need for monitoring of the elemental concentrations in commonly consumed traditional medicines regularly to detect contamination in these medicines since the occurrence of metals in these medicines above or below legally permissible limits can be harmful to consumers.

Indexed as

Medicine, AyurvedicMedicine, TraditionalChinaGhanaHumansIndiaAyurvedic medicinesChinese traditional medicinesConcentrationsElementsGhanaian traditional medicinesToxic

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.