ReviewRegulatory toxicology and pharmacology : RTP2023
Improving the rigor and utility of botanical toxicity studies: Recommended resources.
Review in Regulatory toxicology and pharmacology : RTP, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- A proposed evaluation of new approach methodologies for dermal toxicity assessment of botanicals.Pharmaceutical biology · 2026Review
- Chemical standardization of kava (Pharmaceutical biology · 2026Article
- From Vision to Reality: Five Years of the Botanical Safety Consortium.Pharmaceutical biology · 2025Review
- Developing an approach for evaluating the cardiotoxic potential of botanicals.Frontiers in toxicology · 2025Review
- Botanical-induced toxicity: Liver injury and botanical-drug interactions. A report on a society of Toxicology Annual Meeting symposium.Regulatory toxicology and pharmacology : RTP · 2024Article
- Chemical Standardization of Milk Thistle (Journal of the American Society for Mass Spectrometry · 2024Article
- Advancing botanical safety: A strategy for selecting, sourcing, and characterizing botanicals for developing toxicological tools.Food and chemical toxicology : an international journal published for the British Industrial Biological Research Association · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
16 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Interest in botanicals, particularly as dietary supplement ingredients, is growing steadily. This growth, and the marketing of new ingredients and combination products as botanical dietary supplements, underscores the public health need for a better understanding of potential toxicities associated with use of these products. This article and accompanying template outline the resources to collect literature and relevant information to support the design of botanical toxicity studies. These resources provide critical information related to botanical identification, characterization, pre-clinical and clinical data, including adverse effects and interactions with pharmaceuticals. Toxicologists using these resources should collaborate with pharmacognosists and/or analytical chemists to enhance knowledge of the botanical material being tested. Overall, this guide and resource list is meant to help locate relevant information that can be leveraged to inform on decisions related to toxicity testing of botanicals, including the design of higher quality toxicological studies.
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.