Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40069740›Full record

ArticleBMC complementary medicine and therapies2025

Patient-reported therapeutic benefits of herbal medicinal products in the treatment of gynecological ailments.

Alexandra Drebka, Annika J Scholl, Teresa Ochs, Olaf Kelber, Ralph Mösges, Esther Raskopf, Kija Shah-Hosseini, Beatrice E Bachmeier

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC complementary medicine and therapies, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors.

Alexandra DrebkaInstitute of Pharmaceutical Biology, Goethe-University, Frankfurt Am Main, Germany.
Annika J SchollInstitute of Pharmaceutical Biology, Goethe-University, Frankfurt Am Main, Germany.
Teresa OchsInstitute of Pharmaceutical Biology, Goethe-University, Frankfurt Am Main, Germany.
Olaf KelberPhytomedicines Supply and Development Center, R&D, Bayer Consumer Health, SteigerwaldArzneimittelwerk GmbH, Darmstadt, Germany.
Ralph MösgesInstitute of Medical Statistics and Computational Biology, University of Cologne, Cologne, Germany.
Esther RaskopfClinCompetence Cologne GmbH, Cologne, Germany.
Kija Shah-HosseiniInstitute of Medical Statistics and Computational Biology, University of Cologne, Cologne, Germany.
Beatrice E BachmeierInstitute of Pharmaceutical Biology, Goethe-University, Frankfurt Am Main, Germany. b.bachmeier@em.uni-frankfurt.de.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundGynecological ailments have a negative impact on quality of life and productivity. Standard treatment is associated with poor tolerability and other issues related to public health and environment. Herbal Medicinal Products (HMPs) are used traditionally for the treatment of menstrual and menopausal ailments as well as uncomplicated urinary tract infections (uUTIs) for centuries and constitute a suitable addition to current treatment options. HMPs are well tolerated, non-polluting and therapeutically efficacious as evidenced by various clinical studies. Aim of this study was to expand the evidence regarding therapeutic effectiveness of HMPs for the treatment of gynecological complaints by complementing knowledge from clinical studies with real-world evidence from patient-reported outcomes.

methodsA data set consisting of patient-reported outcomes regarding the treatment of gynecological ailments (n = 1658) with HMPs was taken from the pharmaco-epidemiological database PhytoVIS. After data preparation excluding all cases of herbal supplements, homeopathic preparations, or non-herbal medicinal products the remaining data (n = 1363) was grouped into the three indications menstrual complaints (n = 222), menopausal complaints (n = 301), and uUTIs (n = 840). We applied descriptive statistical methods (frequency and percentage) with regard to the variables "age", "treatment duration", "severity of symptoms", "therapeutic benefits", and "adverse drug reactions". Thereafter we evaluated the therapeutic benefit of HMPs as well as adverse events.

resultsThe majority of the patients (82.2%) in the sample assessed the overall therapeutic effect of HMPs for the treatment of gynecological complaints as beneficial and 90.8% of them perceived no or no significant adverse events. Treatment habits differed depending on the type of complaint. In this context the majority of women with menstrual or menopausal ailments preferred to treat for time period of 1 month or longer, while those affected by uUTIs reduced the application of HMPs to the length of their symptoms. Interestingly women with even strong symptoms relied on the therapeutic benefit of HMPs.

conclusionReal-world outcome data are an important supplement to clinical data. Our results reveal a favorable benefit-risk ratio of HMPs and help to implement them into novel therapeutic strategies to treat gynecological complaints.

Indexed as

Genital Diseases, FemalePatient Reported Outcome MeasuresPhytotherapyPlant PreparationsUrinary Tract InfectionsAdultAgedFemaleHumansMenopauseMiddle AgedPlants, MedicinalYoung AdultPlant PreparationsHerbal Medicinal ProductsMenopausal complaintsMenstrual complaintsPatient reported outcomesPharmaco-epidemiological databasePhytoVISUncomplicated urinary tract infections

Identifiers

PMID40069740
PMCPMC11900414

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.