ReviewRSC advances2018
Recent advances and effective strategies in the discovery and applications of natural products.
Review in RSC advances, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- From mycelium to medicine: fungal strategies in the fight against resistance, cancer, and viral infections-insights from egyptian studies.Folia microbiologica · 2026Review
- Comprehensive characterization of anthraquinones inRSC advances · 2024Article
- Quercetin Supplement to Aspirin Attenuates Lipopolysaccharide-Induced Pre-eclampsia-Like Impairments in Rats Through the NLRP3 Inflammasome.Drugs in R&D · 2022Article
- Use of Acetic Acid to Partially Replace Lactic Acid for Decontamination againstFoods (Basel, Switzerland) · 2021Article
- A novel critical control point and chemical marker identification method for the multi-step process control of herbal medicinesRSC advances · 2020Article
- Gut microbiota as important modulator of metabolism in health and disease.RSC advances · 2018Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Natural products are the most representative form of conventional therapy as compared to any other traditional or alternative medicine systems. They have numerous active components, either primary or secondary metabolites, which are associated with the diverse, intricate, and distinct characteristics of natural products and result in various pharmacological effects in clinic. However, some problems are associated with research on herb quality, which is the core of the drug industry, and restrict the development of this field to a certain extent. Quality-markers (Q-markers), a novel concept for quality assessment, open up a new avenue for promotion of healthy development of traditional medicine industry and improvement of the quality standard system to enhance traditional medicine or product quality standards. In this study, we first summarized the main factors affecting the quality of traditional medicines and natural products and importance for safety and then presented the concept of background and relevant factors of Q-markers. Moreover, the modern science technology and related methods used to identify the chemical composition have been discussed. Especially, based on the systematic analysis and discussion of the basic properties and clinical features of natural products, we have discussed new trends and effective strategies for identifying relevant Q-markers from herbs and probed the future research directions and challenges.
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.