Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33680059›Full record

ArticleEvidence-based complementary and alternative medicine : eCAM2021

Cognitive Improvement and Safety Assessment of a Dietary Supplement Containing Propolis Extract in Elderly Japanese: A Placebo-Controlled, Randomized, Parallel-Group, Double-Blind Human Clinical Study.

Takashi Asama, Toshihito Hiraoka, Akio Ohkuma, Nobuaki Okumura, Ayanori Yamaki, Katsuya Urakami

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Evidence-based complementary and alternative medicine : eCAM, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
15citing papers in PubMed, 2 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

15 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. 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

6 authors.

Takashi AsamaInstitute for Bee Products and Health Science, R&D Department, Yamada Bee Company, Inc., Okayama, Japan.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5124-8028
Toshihito HiraokaInstitute for Bee Products and Health Science, R&D Department, Yamada Bee Company, Inc., Okayama, Japan.
Akio OhkumaResearch Center for Immunological Analysis, Inc., Okayama, Japan.
Nobuaki OkumuraInstitute for Bee Products and Health Science, R&D Department, Yamada Bee Company, Inc., Okayama, Japan.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2997-7291
Ayanori YamakiInstitute for Bee Products and Health Science, R&D Department, Yamada Bee Company, Inc., Okayama, Japan.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3843-4555
Katsuya UrakamiDepartment of Biological Regulation, School of Health Science, Faculty of Medicine, Tottori University, Tottori, Japan.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3405-2813

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

PubMed holds no abstract for this paper.

Identifiers

PMID33680059
PMCPMC7929669

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.