SynthesisBMC complementary medicine and therapies2025
Assessing iIndications for herbal medicinal products: a comparative analysis of EMA monographs and database records.
Synthesis 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 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.
- Pharmacological risks of khat-oral antidiabetic drug interactions among patients at Gondar university referral hospital.Scientific reports · 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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAdverse effects are common during cancer treatment and herbal medicinal products (HMPs) are one way to manage symptoms caused by conventional therapy.
objectivesThis assessment focused on comparing HMP indications listed in European Medicines Agency (EMA) monographs with findings in Medline and the Cochrane Library. The objective of this study was to investigate whether there is evidence that HMP indications may be transferred from non-cancer patients to cancer patients for the treatment of therapy-induced symptoms.
methodsThis study design included a comprehensive review of the relevant literature.
resultsThe systematic literature search identified 96 clinical trials from a total of 726 records that met all the inclusion criteria. An analysis was performed on two groups: the EMA indication group vs. the non-EMA-indication group. The EMA indication group comprises trials whose endpoints align with the indications outlined in EMA monographs, representing a slight majority of 58.3% of all eligible clinical trials. In contrast, 41.7% of all studies were found to have non-EMA-indications, i.e. indications for cancer patients not listed in EMA monographs. Approximately 71.1% of all phytopharmaceuticals are approved as traditional use HMPs (THMPs).
conclusionThe efforts of the EMA represent a fundamental step toward securing the quality of HMPs in the European Union (EU). However, a more systematic approach to conducting studies in such a tradition-bound field is required to generate evidence on HMPs. Given the absence of sufficient data, it is not possible to make a definitive statement on the transferability of HMP scopes listed in EMA monographs to the management of treatment-related symptoms in cancer patients.
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.