ReviewCurrent neuropharmacology2021
The Safety and Efficacy of Botanicals with Nootropic Effects.
Review in Current neuropharmacology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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.
Who cites it
8 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 15 citations in OpenAlex.
- Effects of natural extracts in cognitive function of healthy adults: a systematic review and network meta-analysis.Frontiers in pharmacology · 2025Pooled it
- Cognitive and Mood Effects of a Soluble Mango Leaf Extract (ZynamitePharmaceuticals (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Effect of a Plant-Based Nootropic Supplement on Perceptual Decision-Making and Brain Network Interdependencies: A Randomised, Double-Blinded, and Placebo-Controlled Study.Brain sciences · 2025Article
- Safety of Concomitant Use of Corticosteroids and Traditional Korean Herbal Medicine for Facial Nerve Palsy: A Retrospective Study of Effects on Liver and Renal Function.Journal of multidisciplinary healthcare · 2025Article
- Investigating the Neuroprotective and Cognitive-Enhancing Effects ofAntioxidants (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Review
- Article
- Dietary supplement and complementary and alternative medicine use among older adults in Australia and the United States.Journal of the American Geriatrics Society · 2023Article
- Association between dietary intake of anthocyanidins and heart failure among American adults: NHANES (2007-2010 and 2017-2018).Frontiers in nutrition · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Recent estimates for the global brain health supplement category, i.e. nootropic market size, will grow to nearly $5.8 billion by 2023. Overall, nearly one-quarter (23%) of adults currently take a supplement to maintain or improve brain health or delay and reverse dementia. Not surprisingly, the use of such supplements increases with age - more than one-third of the oldest generation (ages 74 and older) takes a supplement for brain health. This widespread use is being driven by a strong desire both in the younger and older generations to enhance cognitive performance and achieve healthy aging. The most prevalent botanicals currently dominating the nootropic marketplace include Gingko biloba, American ginseng, and Bacopa monnieri. However, other botanicals that affect stress, focus, attention, and sleep have also been procured by dietary supplement companies developing products for improving both, short and long-term brain health. This review focuses on efficacy data for neuroactive botanicals targeted at improving cognitive function, stress reduction, memory, mood, attention, concentration, focus, and alertness, including Bacopa monnieri, Ginkgo biloba, Holy basil, American ginseng, Gotu kola, Lemon balm, Common and Spanish sages and spearmint. Botanicals are discussed in terms of available clinical efficacy data and current safety profiles. Data gaps are highlighted for both efficacy and safety to bring attention to unmet needs and future research.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.