ArticlePLOS global public health2025
Therapeutic potential of plant-based therapies in pediculosis capitis: Systematic review and meta-analysis.
Article in PLOS global public health, 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
Pediculosis capitis is a worldwide prevalent public health issue, mostly involving children. Resistance has been increasingly identified with conventional treatments such as permethrin or malathion. We aimed to evaluate the therapeutic potential of plant-based therapies for pediculosis capitis. PubMed, MEDLINE, Embase, EmCare, Web of Science, Cochrane, and ScienceDirect were searched for studies. Google Scholar was used to identify relevant gray literature from inception until 30th July 2023. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and non-randomized controlled trials (NRCTs) in English language evaluating a plant-based head lice treatment were considered for inclusion. This review was registered with the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (CRD42023428674). Study characteristics, detection method, outcomes including final cure rate at 1-14 days following last treatment and adverse events were identified. Statistical analysis was performed with one sample t-test and linear mixed models. Random effects meta-analysis using forest-plots were used to describe intervention odds ratio. From 881 records, 20 studies were included comprising 13 RCTs and 7 NRCTs. All 20 studies were qualitatively analyzed and 9 RCTs were quantitatively analyzed. Based on RCT data, certain plant-based interventions may offer improved cure rates with overall higher mean final cure rate 0.86 (95% CI 0.73, 0.99) compared to conventional treatment 0.60 (95% CI 0.25, 0.95), however findings were limited by study heterogeneity (I2 = 83.2%) and methodological constraints. Local cutaneous irritation was the most frequent adverse event. Several limitations were identified, including confounding variables (e.g., inconsistent combing technique and variable plant-based interventions with multiple active ingredients and formulations), small sample sizes and lack of blinding. The risk of bias was high for NRCTs, while RCTs had some concerns. In conclusion, results should be interpreted cautiously in the context of study limitations. Further research is required to elucidate the efficacy and clinical role of plant-based therapies in PC.
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.