Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36789081›Full record

ReviewFood science & nutrition2023

Ginger as an anticolorectal cancer spice: A systematic review of in vitro to clinical evidence.

Seyed Mostafa Nachvak, Davood Soleimani, Mehali Rahimi, Ali Azizi, Mehdi Moradinazar, Mohammad Hossein Rouhani, Behrouz Halashi, Abbas Abbasi, Mahsa Miryan

Open access · hybridAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Food science & nutrition, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed
3.9field-weighted citation impact, top 6% 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

9 citing papers in PubMed, 23 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Nutritional aphrodisiacs: Biochemistry and Pharmacology.Current research in food science · 2024
    Review
  7. Article
  8. Exploring active ingredients and mechanisms of Coptidis Rhizoma-ginger against colon cancer using network pharmacology and molecular docking.Technology and health care : official journal of the European Society for Engineering and Medicine · 2024
    Article
  9. 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

9 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Seyed Mostafa NachvakNutritional Sciences Department, School of Nutritional Sciences and Food Technology Kermanshah University of Medical Sciences Kermanshah Iran.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7265-3495
Davood SoleimaniNutritional Sciences Department, School of Nutritional Sciences and Food Technology Kermanshah University of Medical Sciences Kermanshah Iran.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9017-3743
Mehali RahimiFaculty of Medicine, Department of Nutrition Kermanshah University of Medical Sciences Kermanshah Iran.
Ali AziziFaculty of Medicine, Department of Nutrition Kermanshah University of Medical Sciences Kermanshah Iran.
Mehdi MoradinazarSocial Development and Health Promotion Research Center Kermanshah University of Medical Science Kermanshah Iran.
Mohammad Hossein RouhaniFood Security Research Center, Health Research Institute, Department of Clinical Nutrition, School of Nutrition and Food Science Isfahan University of Medical Sciences Isfahan Iran.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2451-0083
Behrouz HalashiDepartment of Community Nutrition, School of Nutrition and Food Sciences, Kidney Diseases Research Center Isfahan University of Medical Sciences Isfahan Iran.
Abbas AbbasiNutritional Sciences Department, School of Nutritional Sciences and Food Technology Kermanshah University of Medical Sciences Kermanshah Iran.
Mahsa MiryanNutritional Sciences Department, School of Nutritional Sciences and Food Technology Kermanshah University of Medical Sciences Kermanshah Iran.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1051-6911
Kermanshah University of Medical Sciences · IRIsfahan University of Medical Sciences · IR

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Ginger and its derivatives have been shown to be effective in the prevention and treatment of cancer. We undertook a systematic review to answer the question of whether ginger has a role in modifying the biomarkers of cancer in cell culture conditions and on colorectal cancer in randomized clinical trials. We performed a comprehensive search of the literature from Scopus, Embase, Web of Science, PubMed, Cochrane central register of controlled trials, and Cochrane database of systematic reviews. At first, all 12 papers studied the effect of ginger or its derivatives on cell culture conditions. The results of cell culture studies show that ginger has a powerful role in inducing apoptosis. In the second part, five studies of clinical trials were analyzed. By analyzing antitumor markers of clinical trials, ginger increased some anticancer markers but performed poorly in inducing some anticancer markers. This systematic review showed that the consumption of ginger extract has the potential to prevent and treat colorectal cancer but this ability is weak.

Indexed as

anticancer plantcell culturecolorectal cancergingersystematic review

Identifiers

PMID36789081
PMCPMC9922148
OpenAlexW4311844279

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.