ReviewAvicenna journal of phytomedicine
Antimicrobial effectiveness of aqueous and alcoholic herbal extracts on
Review in Avicenna journal of phytomedicine. 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.
- Maintenance of oral hygiene with beetroot rinse in gingivitis patients with oral lichen planus: A pilot randomized controlled trial.Journal of Indian Society of PeriodontologyArticle
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
Objective: Debates about the efficacy of herbal products in oral care have inspired researchers to conduct a large number of trials. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to assess the antibacterial efficacy of aqueous and alcoholic herbal extracts against Materials and Methods: Online databases PubMed, Scopus, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, and Magiran were searched for randomized controlled trials evaluating the efficacy of herbal products against SM published up to July 2023. Meta-analyses were performed for immediate and long-term effects based on random effect model. Results: Out of 57 studies that met the selection criteria for systematic review, 26 were subjected to meta-analysis. Considering both immediate and long-term effects on salivary SM, aqueous and alcoholic herbal extracts were significantly superior in the reduction of SM over non-herbal agents (immediate: SMD = -1.16; 95%CI: -2.03, -0.29, long-term: SMD = -0.76; 95%CI: -1.35, -0.17). However, the difference was not significant in the reduction of SM of plaque (SMD = -0.30, 95%CI: -1.25, 0.65). The subgroup analyses showed no significant difference compared to chlorhexidine (p>0.05). The overall quality of evidence was considered low based on GRADE tool. Conclusion: Current evidence suggests encouraging results for herbal extracts in reduction of SM, but not over chlorhexidine. However, there is still insufficient evidence to recommend them as the first option for oral care. High-quality randomized controlled trials are required to assert the safety and effectiveness of them for preventing dental caries.
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.