Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33371310›Full record

ReviewBiology2020

A Descriptive Overview of the Medical Uses Given to

Henrique Silva

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Biology, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing 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

12 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Investigating the Health Potential ofPharmaceuticals (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025
    Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Molecules (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023
    Review
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Menthol InhibitsEvidence-based complementary and alternative medicine : eCAM · 2022
    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.

Henrique SilvaInformetrics Research Group, Ton Duc Thang University, Ho Chi Minh City 758307, Vietnam.ORCID 0000-0003-3258-5851

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Mints have been among the most widely used herbs for medicinal purposes since ancient civilizations. They are still presently used for numerous purposes, including non-medicinal, which makes them economically relevant herbs. Information regarding the medical and scientific uses given to mints throughout history are vastly scattered and/or incomplete. The aim of this paper is to provide an extensive descriptive overview of the medical uses given to these herbs, highlighting both the authors in medical culture responsible for their dissemination, as well as their major galenic formulations. Databases on medical science, reference textbooks on medical history, botanics (aromatic herbs), and pharmacognosy were consulted. The use of mints remotes to Classical Antiquity, with major contributions from Pliny the Elder. In the Middle Ages, the increased knowledge surrounding mints came from Byzantine physicians, while, in the Modern Age, technological developments allowed the production of mint-based products which have become part of elaborate galenic formulas employed by an increasing number of physicians, as well as have also stimulated both scientific and artistic interests alike. In present-day medicine, several mints and mint-based products are being researched as potential therapeutic alternatives for many diseases, while also being vastly employed in food and cosmetic industries.

Indexed as

aromatic herbhistoryMentha L. genuspharmacognosytherapeutics

Identifiers

PMID33371310
PMCPMC7767097

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.