ArticleJournal of veterinary pharmacology and therapeutics2025
Analysis of US Marketed Artemisinin Supplements for Use in Dogs.
Article in Journal of veterinary pharmacology and therapeutics, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- StandardizedVeterinary sciences · 2025Article
- The Beneficial Use ofAnimals : an open access journal from MDPI · 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
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Oral artemisinin has antiparasitic activity and may help improve treatment success rates in dogs infected with Babesia gibsoni. However, these artemisinin products are unapproved and unregulated botanical supplements. They have not been evaluated for safety and efficacy or for strength, purity, or quality compared with a reference standard. Before considering these products for a clinical study, we evaluated the strength of four suppliers of artemisinin capsules using an high-performance liquid chromatography method validated in our laboratory. We found that the four artemisinin-labeled products that were tested had high within product and between product variability in capsule strength compared with the stated capsule strength on the product label. No products met the acceptance criteria of the United States Pharmacopeia and International Council for Harmonisation (ICH) as well as the criteria adapted by the authors. One product had no detectable artemisinin, and the other three products were much higher than the stated label strength. The results of this study reinforce the importance of testing unapproved and unregulated supplements before recommending a supplement for clinical use in dogs.
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.