SynthesisClinical drug investigation2025
A Comprehensive Systematic Review of Natural Biomedicines for Immune-Mediated and Inflammatory Dermatologic Diseases.
Synthesis in Clinical drug investigation, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
backgroundNatural biomedicines (NBMs) are frequently used to manage immune-mediated and inflammatory dermatologic diseases (IMIDDs). This systematic review evaluates the efficacy, safety, and clinical relevance of NBMs in IMIDDs, providing an evidence-based analysis to guide dermatologic practice.
methodsFollowing PRISMA guidelines, a systematic search was conducted in PubMed, Embase, Medline, and Google Scholar for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) investigating NBMs in IMIDDs from 1990 to 2023. Studies were included if they met predefined eligibility criteria: RCT design, relevant IMIDD condition, NBM intervention, and quantitative outcome measures. Risk of bias was assessed using the Jadad scale. Results were synthesized qualitatively due to heterogeneity in study designs and outcome measures.
resultsOf 1364 records screened, 95 RCTs were included, encompassing 5265 participants across 23 countries. Indigo naturalis, fish oil (⍵-3), and aloe vera demonstrated the most consistent efficacy in managing psoriasis, systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE), atopic dermatitis (AD), and lichen planus (LP). Indigo naturalis significantly improved erythema, scaling, and PASI scores in psoriasis patients. Fish oil showed benefits in SLE disease activity indices and AD severity, while aloe vera demonstrated improvements in SCORAD and LP severity criteria. Most NBMs exhibited favorable safety profiles, although adverse event reporting was inconsistent. DISCUSSION: While these findings highlight the potential of NBMs in dermatologic care, methodological limitations, including small sample sizes, heterogeneity in study designs, and lack of direct comparisons to conventional therapies, limit definitive conclusions. Additionally, not all natural agents can be easily searched and captured in systematic reviews, which may have restricted the scope of included NBMs. Future research should emphasize high-quality RCTs, standardized outcome measures, and comparative studies against conventional treatments.
trial registrationThe review protocol is registered with Open Science Framework (OSF) ( https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/UH9XJ ).
Indexed as
Identifiers
40293693What 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.