ArticleTurkish journal of pharmaceutical sciences2022
The Safety of Herbal Medicines (Phytovigilance) from Community Pharmacists' Perspective: A Cross-Sectional Study.
Article in Turkish journal of pharmaceutical sciences, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Himalayan medicinal plants for gastrointestinal disorders: ethnopharmacology and mechanistic insights.Inflammopharmacology · 2026Review
- A Scoping Review of Published Literature on the Contributions of the Natural Health Products (NHPs) Industry to Pharmacovigilance for NHPs.Drug safety · 2026Article
- Pharmacovigilance and herbal medicines safety: a cross-sectional study of healthcare professionals' knowledge, attitudes and practices in selected regions of Tanzania, 2021.BMC complementary medicine and therapies · 2025Observational
- Defining and supporting a professional role for pharmacists associated with traditional and complementary medicines: a cross-country survey of pharmacists.Frontiers in pharmacology · 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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objectives: The "safe if natural" perception of herbal products may have several undesirable side effects. It is important to raise awareness in public order to change this perception and ensure safer use of herbal products. The role of pharmacists is to supply herbal medicines safely and to provide accurate information to the patients about herbal products. The aim of this study was to analyze the perspective, knowledge, attitude, and behavior of community pharmacists about phytovigilance. Materials and Methods: A cross-sectional analysis was performed using community pharmacists (n= 879) using face-to-face surveys between April-June 2019 in Istanbul. For statistical analysis, student's t-test and one-way ANOVA were used to compare the mean values of the groups. Results: It was determined that 58.1% of the pharmacists heard phytovigilance for the first time and 93.5% of them had not reported any safety-related herbal medicine reported so far. Among the reasons for not reporting, well-known adverse reactions were found to be 24.2% and the difficulty of reporting was found to be 21.8%. 84.6% of pharmacists have never received training related to phytovigilance. It was found that pharmacists with a working experience of more than 20 years primarily selected herbal products provided in their pharmacy based on the manufacturing company primarily, whereas others selected based on the efficacy of the products. Conclusion: The results of this study have revealed the necessity to increase training on the safety of herbal medicines to cover all stakeholders and to give due importance to phytovigilance. The phytovigilance systems established in some countries for public health should be expanded to other countries. There is a need for a more user-friendly reporting system to increase adverse reaction reporting by pharmacists and other healthcare professionals. In the future, plan to perform studies to raise awareness in the public and promote reporting with digital technologies.
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.