ArticleACR open rheumatology2024
Prevalence and Risk of Immunostimulatory Herbal Supplement Treatment Among Autoimmune Dermatology Patients.
Article in ACR open rheumatology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Identifying immunostimulatory herbal supplements that may flare autoimmune skin diseases: a systematic scoping review.Lupus science & medicine · 2025Article
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
Abstract
objectiveWe assess the prevalence and patterns of herbal supplement treatment among patients with autoimmune skin diseases, particularly dermatomyositis (DM) and cutaneous lupus erythematosus (CLE), and identify commonly taken supplements and their associated risks.
methodsThis study screened 673 adult patients with clinicopathologic evidence of DM or CLE at the University of Pennsylvania's rheumatologic-dermatology clinic between January 2007 and February 2024. Demographic data, disease characteristics, and detailed information on herbal supplement treatment were collected. Predictors of supplement treatment were analyzed using chi-square tests and reported as odds ratios.
resultsThe prevalence of herbal supplement treatment was 32% among the cohort. The relative frequency of herbal supplement treatment was significantly higher in younger patients (44% of patients ages 18-29 years, reference; 29% ages 50-64 years, P = 0.02; 23% ages ≥65 years, P = 0.003) and in Hispanic/Latino patients (58% vs 31% White, P = 0.009). No significant difference in herbal supplement treatment was seen by sex (33% of female participants, 29% of male participants, P = 0.49), race (31% White, P = reference; 31% Black, P = 1.0; 38% Asian, P = 0.55), or disease (30% of patients with DM, 36% of patients with CLE; P = 0.12). Among patients with DM, 31% experienced a disease onset or exacerbation after supplement treatment compared with 10% of patients with CLE. Elderberry treatment was associated with the highest risk of exacerbation in both disease cohorts (62% DM, 50% CLE).
conclusionHerbal supplement treatment is prevalent among patients with autoimmune skin diseases, with immunostimulatory supplements posing a significant risk for immune dysregulation, particularly in DM. Providers should proactively screen and counsel patients regarding treatment with these supplements.
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.