ReviewJournal of personalized medicine2024
Natural Health Products for Anti-Cancer Treatment: Evidence and Controversy.
Review in Journal of personalized medicine, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- The influence of concomitant proton pump inhibitors use on treatment efficacy in hepatocellular carcinoma patients receiving immune checkpoint inhibitors: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Frontiers in immunology · 2026Pooled it
- The effect of plant active substances on cognitive function in healthy older adults: a systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.Frontiers in pharmacology · 2025Pooled it
- Need for Medication Review and Deprescribing in People Living with HIV: A Longitudinal Observational Study.Pharmaceuticals (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Effects of Natural Health Products in Combination with FP-Based Chemotherapy.Pharmaceuticals (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
- When Nature Meets Oncology: Unraveling Herb-Drug Interactions in Cancer Therapy.International journal of molecular sciences · 2025Review
- Isoquercitrin Suppresses Esophageal Squamous Cell Carcinoma (ESCC) by Inducing Excessive Autophagy and Promoting Apoptosis via the AKT/mTOR Signaling Pathway.Antioxidants (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Curcumin in oral health: mechanisms, clinical evidence, and delivery strategies.Frontiers in pharmacology · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Natural Health Products (NHPs) have long been considered a valuable therapeutic approach for the prevention and treatment of various diseases, including cancer. However, research on this topic has led to inconclusive and often controversial results. This review aims to provide a comprehensive update of the effects and mechanisms related to the use of NHPs, to describe the results of randomized clinical trials (RCTs) on their effects in cancer patients, and to critically discuss factors influencing clinical outcomes. RCTs available in the literature, even those studying the same NHP, are very heterogeneous in terms of indications, doses, route and timing of administration, and outcomes evaluated. Silymarin, ginsenoside, and vitamin E appear to be useful in attenuating adverse events related to radiotherapy or chemotherapy, and curcumin and lycopene might provide some benefit in patients with prostate cancer. Most RCTs have not clarified whether NHP supplementation provides any real benefit, while harmful effects have been shown in some cases. Overall, the available data suggest that although there is some evidence to support the benefits of NHPs in the management of cancer patients, further clinical trials with the same design are needed before their introduction into clinical practice can be considered.
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.