Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34744723›Full record

ReviewFrontiers in pharmacology2021

Pharmacology of Natural Volatiles and Essential Oils in Food, Therapy, and Disease Prophylaxis.

Nicholas John Sadgrove, Guillermo Federico Padilla-González, Olga Leuner, Ingrid Melnikovova, Eloy Fernandez-Cusimamani

Open access · goldAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Frontiers in pharmacology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
15citing papers in PubMed
3.8field-weighted citation impact, top 5% 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

15 citing papers in PubMed, 52 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Antimicrobial Activity ofPharmaceuticals (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024
    Article
  8. A Comparison between BulgarianMolecules (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024
    Article
  9. Review
  10. Review
  11. Review
  12. Pharmaceutics · 2023
    Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Review
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

5 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Nicholas John SadgroveJodrell Science Laboratory, Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew, Richmond, United Kingdom.
Guillermo Federico Padilla-GonzálezJodrell Science Laboratory, Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew, Richmond, United Kingdom.
Olga LeunerDepartment of Crop Sciences and Agroforestry, Faculty of Tropical AgriSciences, Czech University of Life Sciences Prague, Prague, Czech Republic.
Ingrid MelnikovovaDepartment of Crop Sciences and Agroforestry, Faculty of Tropical AgriSciences, Czech University of Life Sciences Prague, Prague, Czech Republic.
Eloy Fernandez-CusimamaniDepartment of Crop Sciences and Agroforestry, Faculty of Tropical AgriSciences, Czech University of Life Sciences Prague, Prague, Czech Republic.
Czech University of Life Sciences Prague · CZRoyal Botanic Gardens, Kew · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

This commentary critically examines the modern paradigm of natural volatiles in 'medical aromatherapy', first by explaining the semantics of natural volatiles in health, then by addressing chemophenetic challenges to authenticity or reproducibility, and finally by elaborating on pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic processes in food, therapy, and disease prophylaxis. Research over the last 50 years has generated substantial knowledge of the chemical diversity of volatiles, and their strengths and weaknesses as antimicrobial agents. However, due to modest

Indexed as

anti-inflammatoryantimicrobialaromatherapygas chromatographyheadspacepathogenpharmacodynamicspharmacokinetics

Identifiers

PMID34744723
PMCPMC8566702
OpenAlexW3208891139

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.