SynthesisFrontiers in pharmacology2025
Effects of natural extracts in cognitive function of healthy adults: a systematic review and network meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Frontiers in pharmacology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Review
- Review
- Neuroprotective Mechanisms of Porcine Brain Enzyme Hydrolysate in Memory Impairment: Multi-Target Strategy Against Amyloid-β-Induced Neurotoxicity.International journal of molecular sciences · 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
Background: For years, diets and natural extracts have been explored for boosting cognition, but limited evidence challenges their recommendation for widespread use. Objective: Our study aimed to perform a network meta-analysis to evaluate effects of natural extracts on cognitive function in healthy adults. Methods: Researchers reviewed randomized controlled trials from Embase, PubMed, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science (up to 7 September 2024). Study quality was assessed with the Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool, and node-splitting analysis ensured consistency (p > 0.05). SUCRA values were calculated using parametric bootstrapping with 10,000 resamples. Primary outcomes included global cognition, attention, memory, executive function, and cognitive flexibility, with efficacy ranked by SUCRA probabilities. Results: From 27 studies with 2,334 samples and 19 natural extract treatments, RPTW showed the greatest improvement in overall cognition (SUCRA: 95.9%). No extracts significantly outperformed placebo for attention. CG (Cistanche + Ginkgo biloba) was most effective for memory (SUCRA: 89.3%), executive function (SUCRA: 96.9%), and cognitive flexibility (SUCRA: 98.0%). Conclusion: RPTW extracts improve overall cognition in healthy adults, while CG enhances memory, executive function, and cognitive flexibility. Systematic Review Registration: https://inplasy.com/inplasy-2024-11-0007/, identifier INPLASY (INPLASY2024110007).
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.