SynthesisFrontiers in pharmacology2025
Efficacy of botanical extracts for knee osteoarthritis: a network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.
Synthesis in Frontiers in pharmacology, 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Traditional botanical drugs and medicinal plants, along with their metabolite extracts, have exhibited considerable potential in the management of knee osteoarthritis (KOA) due to their natural properties, favorable safety profiles, and minimal adverse effects. Objective: This study aimed to evaluate the therapeutic efficacy of various botanical and medicinal plant extracts on KOA. Search Methods: We conducted a comprehensive literature search across PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science, focusing exclusively on randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that investigated the efficacy of botanical and medicinal plant extracts for KOA. Selection Criteria: Studies were included if they met the following criteria: (1) experimental groups receiving single botanical drugs or plant extracts for KOA; (2) control groups comprising patients receiving placebo or standard care; (3) clinical RCT designs; and (4) outcome measures including at least one of the following: Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC), Visual Analogue Scale (VAS), Short Form 36 Health Survey (SF-36), Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS), Lequesne's Pain-Function Index (LPFI), Japanese Orthopaedic Association Score (JOA). Data Collection and Analysis: The methodological quality of the included studies was assessed using the Cochrane risk of bias tool, and data analysis was performed using appropriate statistical software. Results: A total of 36 RCTs, encompassing 3,285 participants, were included in this review. Network meta-analysis revealed that compared to the placebo control group, Cucumis sativus (CS) extract [MD = 6.65, 95% CI = (3.83, 9.48)] significantly improved pain scores; Ashwagandha extract [MD = 4.16, 95% CI = (2.43, 5.90)] was more effective in reducing stiffness scores; and CS extract [MD = 4.28, 95% CI = (2.08, 6.49)] significantly improved function scores. Conclusion: Based on Ranking Plot of the Network, we can state that CS extract is recommended as the most effective botanical and medicinal plant extract for KOA treatment. However, further studies are required to draw definitive conclusions. Given that there are only two studies with high homogeneity but small sample size for CS extract, the first result should be regarded as an exploratory signal and needs to be verified by a large sample multi-center RCT with independent teams. Clinical Trial Registration: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?ID=CRD42024617459, identifier CRD42024617459.
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.