Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32990945›Full record

SynthesisThe Cochrane database of systematic reviews2020

Pine bark (Pinus spp.) extract for treating chronic disorders.

Nina U Robertson, Anel Schoonees, Amanda Brand, Janicke Visser

Open access · greenAbstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in The Cochrane database of systematic reviews, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 18 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
18citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
2.5field-weighted citation impact, top 11% 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

18 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 24 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Frontiers in pharmacology · 2025
    Review
  8. Article
  9. An Update on New and Existing Treatments for the Management of Melasma.American journal of clinical dermatology · 2024
    Review
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. The common indoor air pollutant α-pinene is metabolised to a genotoxic metabolite α-pinene oxide.Xenobiotica; the fate of foreign compounds in biological systems · 2022
    Article
  16. Molecular medicine reports · 2022
    Article
  17. Review
  18. Plants (Basel, Switzerland) · 2021
    Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Nina U RobertsonDivision of Human Nutrition, Stellenbosch University, Cape Town, South Africa.
Anel SchooneesCentre for Evidence-based Health Care, Division of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, Stellenbosch University, Cape Town, South Africa.
Amanda BrandCentre for Evidence-based Health Care, Division of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, Stellenbosch University, Cape Town, South Africa.
Janicke VisserDivision of Human Nutrition, Stellenbosch University, Cape Town, South Africa.
Stellenbosch University · ZA

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundPine bark (Pinus spp.) extract is rich in bioflavonoids, predominantly proanthocyanidins, which are antioxidants. Commercially-available extract supplements are marketed for preventing or treating various chronic conditions associated with oxidative stress. This is an update of a previously published review.

objectivesTo assess the efficacy and safety of pine bark extract supplements for treating chronic disorders. SEARCH

methodsWe searched three databases and three trial registries; latest search: 30 September 2019. We contacted the manufacturers of pine bark extracts to identify additional studies and hand-searched bibliographies of included studies. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating pine bark extract supplements in adults or children with any chronic disorder. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two authors independently assessed trial eligibility, extracted data and assessed risk of bias. Where possible, we pooled data in meta-analyses. We used GRADE to evaluate the certainty of evidence. Primary outcomes were participant- and investigator-reported clinical outcomes directly related to each disorder and all-cause mortality. We also assessed adverse events and biomarkers of oxidative stress. MAIN

resultsThis review included 27 RCTs (22 parallel and five cross-over designs; 1641 participants) evaluating pine bark extract supplements across 10 chronic disorders: asthma (two studies; 86 participants); attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) (one study; 61 participants), cardiovascular disease (CVD) and risk factors (seven studies; 338 participants), chronic venous insufficiency (CVI) (two studies; 60 participants), diabetes mellitus (DM) (six studies; 339 participants), erectile dysfunction (three studies; 277 participants), female sexual dysfunction (one study; 83 participants), osteoarthritis (three studies; 293 participants), osteopenia (one study; 44 participants) and traumatic brain injury (one study; 60 participants). Two studies exclusively recruited children; the remainder recruited adults. Trials lasted between four weeks and six months. Placebo was the control in 24 studies. Overall risk of bias was low for four, high for one and unclear for 22 studies. In adults with asthma, we do not know whether pine bark extract increases change in forced expiratory volume in one second (FEV AUTHORS'

conclusionsSmall sample sizes, limited numbers of RCTs per condition, variation in outcome measures, and poor reporting of the included RCTs mean no definitive conclusions regarding the efficacy or safety of pine bark extract supplements are possible.

Indexed as

AdolescentAdultAntioxidantsAsthmaAttention Deficit Disorder with HyperactivityBiasBone Diseases, MetabolicBrain Injuries, TraumaticCardiovascular DiseasesChildChronic DiseaseDiabetes Mellitus, Type 1Diabetes Mellitus, Type 2Erectile DysfunctionFemaleFlavonoidsAntioxidantsFlavonoidsPlant Extractspycnogenols

Identifiers

PMID32990945
PMCPMC8094515
OpenAlexW3090176419

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.