ReviewFrontiers in pharmacology2026
Plant-derived modulators of the hemostasis-wound healing axis: mechanisms, evidence, and translational potential.
Review in Frontiers in pharmacology, 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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Medicinal plants are widely used to control bleeding and support wound care, but the hemostatic and reparative evidence attributed to a species often derives from different plant parts, extracts, or formulations. This critical narrative review examines the ethnomedicinal, experimental, clinical, safety, and translational evidence for plant-derived preparations reported to modulate one or more stages of the hemostasis-wound-healing axis. Structured searches of PubMed/MEDLINE, Scopus, and Web of Science were updated through 19 July 2026 using terms related to medicinal plants, coagulation, platelet function, wound healing, formulation, standardization, toxicity, and safety. The literature retained for detailed synthesis encompassed crude extracts, enriched fractions, latex-derived proteases, isolated plant metabolites, hydrogels, nanoparticles, and other formulated materials. Mechanistically, direct evidence was concentrated primarily in fibrinogen-cleaving plant proteases and notoginsenoside Ft1-mediated platelet signaling. In contrast, anti-inflammatory, pro-angiogenic, antimicrobial, and extracellular-matrix-related effects were supported mainly at the extract, fraction, or formulation level. The strength and mechanistic depth of the evidence varied substantially among species, preparations, experimental models, and outcomes, and hemostatic and wound-repair effects were frequently demonstrated using different materials from the same species. Thus, the available evidence supports the hemostasis-wound-healing axis as a useful framework for prioritizing candidates, but current evidence does not support medicinal plants as a uniformly effective therapeutic class. Translation should initially prioritize chemically and biologically standardized topical or locally retained products, component-specific controls, clinically relevant preclinical models, exposure-response and safety characterization, and adequately powered indication-specific trials. Taxonomic validity, material traceability, sustainable sourcing, and ethical governance of traditional knowledge should be integrated from the outset.
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.