ReviewJournal of traditional and complementary medicine2021
Review in Journal of traditional and complementary medicine, 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.
- A Comprehensive Review of the Revolutionary Potential of Blockchain in Safe, Secure, and Sustainable Pharmaceutical Operations.Pharmaceutical research · 2026Pooled it
- Multi-pathway targeting by natural products in chronic respiratory diseases: Opportunities, challenges, and future perspectives.Chinese herbal medicines · 2026Article
- Chemical Diversity and Biomedical Relevance of Oxalis corniculata L.: A Review of Nutritional and Pharmacological Aspects.Chemistry & biodiversity · 2026Review
- Phytochemicals: Principles and Practice.Biology · 2025Review
- Article
- The contemporary nexus of medicines security and bioprospecting: a future perspective for prioritizing the patient.Natural products and bioprospecting · 2024Review
- DNA from herbs can be obtained from air and authenticated by polymerase chain reaction.Heliyon · 2023Article
- Multi-methodological approach for the Quality assessment of Senecionis scandentis Herba (Qianliguang) in the herbal market.PloS one · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The use of medicinal plants is popular worldwide. Correct herbal authentication is of paramount importance to the safety and best interest of consumers. On the market, there is no comprehensive blockchain-based system to track the processes from plantation to manufacturing and to the sale. With the advancement of information technology, an open and transparent blockchain-based platform,
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.