ArticleJMIR research protocols2024
In Silico Approaches to Polyherbal Synergy: Protocol for a Scoping Review.
Article in JMIR research protocols, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
backgroundAccording to the World Health Organization, more than 80% of the world's population relies on traditional medicine. Traditional medicine is typically based on the use of single herbal drugs or polyherbal formulations (PHFs) to manage diseases. However, the probable mode of action of these formulations is not well studied or documented. Over the past few decades, computational methods have been used to study the molecular mechanism of phytochemicals in single herbal drugs. However, the in silico methods applied to study PHFs remain unclear.
objectiveThe aim of this protocol is to develop a search strategy for a scoping review to map the in silico approaches applied in understanding the activity of PHFs used as traditional medicines worldwide.
methodsThe scoping review will be conducted based on the methodology developed by Arksey and O'Malley and the recommendations of the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI). A set of predetermined keywords will be used to identify the relevant studies from five databases: PubMed, Embase, Science Direct, Web of Science, and Google Scholar. Two independent reviewers will conduct the search to yield a list of relevant studies based on the inclusion and exclusion criteria. Mendeley version 1.19.8 will be used to remove duplicate citations, and title and abstract screening will be performed with Rayyan software. The JBI System for the Unified Management, Assessment, and Review of Information tool will be used for data extraction. The scoping review will be reported based on the PRISMA-ScR (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews) guidelines.
resultsBased on the core areas of the scoping review, a 3-step search strategy was developed. The initial search produced 3865 studies. After applying filters, 875 studies were short-listed for further review. Keywords were further refined to yield more relevant studies on the topic.
conclusionsThe findings are expected to determine the extent of the knowledge gap in the applications of computational methods in PHFs for any traditional medicine across the world. The study can provide answers to open research questions related to the phytochemical identification of PHFs, criteria for target identification, strategies applied for in silico studies, software used, and challenges in adopting in silico methods for understanding the mechanisms of action of PHFs. This study can thus provide a better understanding of the application and types of in silico methods for investigating PHFs. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): PRR1-10.2196/56646.
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.