ReviewFrontiers in pharmacology2026
Harpagophytum procumbens in musculoskeletal disorders: current evidence and comparison with NSAIDs.
Review in Frontiers in pharmacology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. 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
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Harpagophytum procumbens (HP), commonly known as Devil's Claw, is a traditional medicinal plant widely used for musculoskeletal pain and inflammatory conditions. Interest in HP has increased because long-term use of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) may be limited by gastrointestinal, cardiovascular, and renal adverse effects. This structured narrative review summarizes current evidence regarding the pharmacological mechanisms, clinical efficacy, safety, pharmacokinetics, regulatory status, and comparative role of HP relative to NSAIDs. Preclinical studies suggest that HP and its constituents, particularly harpagoside, may modulate inflammatory pathways including cyclooxygenase-2, nuclear factor-κB, pro-inflammatory cytokines, and oxidative stress signaling. However, these mechanistic findings represent indirect evidence and should be interpreted cautiously in relation to clinical outcomes. Clinical studies, mainly in osteoarthritis and low back pain, suggest that selected HP preparations may provide symptomatic benefit in some patients. However, the clinical evidence base remains limited by small sample sizes, heterogeneous formulations, variable dosages, short follow-up durations, and a scarcity of high-quality head-to-head randomized trials against NSAIDs. In contrast, NSAIDs are supported by a substantially broader and higher-certainty evidence base for pain relief and functional improvement. Available safety data suggest that HP is generally well tolerated, although product quality, standardization, and long-term safety data remain variable across jurisdictions. Current evidence does not support positioning HP as a general replacement for NSAIDs. Rather, HP may be considered as a complementary or selective option for some patients, particularly where NSAID intolerance or long-term safety concerns exist. Further large-scale, rigorously designed randomized trials using standardized formulations are required.
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.