ArticleJournal of traditional and complementary medicine2026
A double-blinded randomized clinical trial: Topical Sahasthara extract
Article in Journal of traditional and complementary medicine, 2026. 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
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background and aim: Sahasthara (SHT), a traditional Thai herbal remedy used for anti-inflammatory and musculoskeletal disorders, lacks clinical evaluation as a topical formulation employing microemulsion (ME) technology. This study aimed to assess the efficacy and safety of a Sahasthara microemulsion (SHT-ME) compared with a diclofenac microemulsion (DF-ME) in patients with primary knee osteoarthritis (OA). Experimental procedure: Eighty-four patients aged 40-70 years were randomized to receive either 1% SHT-ME or 2% DF-ME, applied three times daily for 28 days. Efficacy was evaluated using the pain visual analogue scale (VAS), 100-m walking time, Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) scores, and global assessments. Safety assessments included physical examinations, laboratory tests, and adverse-event monitoring. Results: Both formulations significantly reduced VAS pain scores, improved walking time, and decreased WOMAC scores at days 14 and 28 compared with baseline (P < 0.05). No significant efficacy differences were observed between groups (P > 0.05). Liver and renal function, blood pressure, and biochemical parameters remained within normal ranges, and no severe or skin-related adverse events occurred in either group. Conclusion: SHT-ME provided efficacy comparable to DF-ME in relieving pain and improving mobility in knee OA. Both treatments were well tolerated and safe. These findings suggest that SHT-ME, a natural herbal alternative, and DF-ME, a synthetic drug formulation, are equally effective topical microemulsions for knee osteoarthritis management.
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.