ArticleFrontiers in pharmacology2025
Comparative efficacy and safety of botanical drugs for mild cognitive impairment: a systematic review and network meta-analysis.
Article 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 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.
- The multi-target protective effects of quercetin in cerebrovascular diseases: a dietary strategy for endothelial repair and neuroprotection.Frontiers in nutrition · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: This study evaluated the comparative efficacy and safety of eighteen botanical drug interventions in improving cognitive function, daily living activities, and psychological wellbeing in patients with mild cognitive impairment (MCI). Methods: Randomized controlled trials were identified from PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science up to September 2025. Methodological quality was assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool, and data were analyzed within a Bayesian framework. Results: Nineteen trials involving 4,956 participants were included. For cognitive function, measured as a standardized mean difference (SMD) to harmonize various assessment scales, Pycnogenol showed the most significant effect and the highest probability of being the best intervention (Surface Under the Cumulative Ranking Curve, SUCRA: 98.8%). It also ranked highest for improving daily living (SUCRA: 100%), whereas Cosmos caudatus Supplement ranked first for psychological wellbeing (SUCRA: 98.9%). Most included botanical drugs were generally well-tolerated, with adverse event rates comparable to placebo, although safety reporting was inconsistent across studies. Conclusion: Pycnogenol showed the highest probability of improving cognitive function and daily living scores in patients with MCI, while Cosmos caudatus supplementation ranked highest for psychological outcomes. Although these findings highlight potential benefits, heterogeneity among the included studies warrant cautious interpretation.
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.