Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36048322›Full record

ReviewCurrent psychiatry reports2022

Nip it in the Bud: Botanicals for Anxiety - a Practical Prescriber's Guide.

Theresa B Gattari, Karina Drake, Alexander Scott

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Current psychiatry reports, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
0.6field-weighted citation impact, top 26% 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

0 citing papers in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Theresa B GattariUniversity of Michigan, 1500 E Medical Center Drive, Ann Arbor, MI, 48109, USA. tbg.emt@gmail.com.
Karina DrakeCentura Health, Denver, CO, USA.
Alexander ScottUniversity of Michigan, 1500 E Medical Center Drive, Ann Arbor, MI, 48109, USA.
University of Michigan–Ann Arbor · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purpose of reviewThe goal of this paper is to summarize the evidence for the use of botanical medicines for the treatment of anxiety disorders. We sought to make this review practical for psychiatrists and psychiatric prescribers. RECENT

findingsIn 2018, the Natural Medicines database produced a Clinical Management of Anxiety guide that summarized the conventional and natural treatments of anxiety disorders. Based on this guide, four herbal supplements (also referred to as botanicals) were selected for deeper study including kava, lavender, lemon balm and passionflower. All four were considered possibly safe and possibly effective according to the Natural Medicines database. There is scientific evidence supporting the use of kava, lavender, lemon balm and passionflower in anxiety disorders. Lavender appears to have the best available evidence including comparable efficacy to conventional first line treatments and is available in a patented form that was used in the cited studies (Silexan).

Indexed as

LavandulaPhytotherapyAnxietyAnxiety DisordersHumansAnxiety treatmentHerbsKavaLavenderLemon balmPassionflower

Identifiers

PMID36048322
OpenAlexW4294127379

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.