Evidence mapPaperPMID 25301027Full record

ArticleDer Internist2014

[Herbal medicines: when to use or not to use?].

K Mörike, C H Gleiter

Abstract readEnglish Abstract
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Der Internist, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
field-weighted citation impact, top 40% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed, 0 citations in OpenAlex.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

K MörikeAbteilung Klinische Pharmakologie, Institut für Experimentelle und Klinische Pharmakologie und Toxikologie, Universitätsklinikum Tübingen, Auf der Morgenstelle 8, 72076, Tübingen, Deutschland, klaus.moerike@med.uni-tuebingen.de.
C H Gleiter
Universitätsklinikum Tübingen · DE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Herbal medicines are popular. It is frequently assumed that they are effective and safe. Sound knowledge of existing, or lacking, data on the efficacy and safety is required for advice and for the decision whether or not to use a particular herbal drug. Cochrane reviews are available for some herbal remedies. Most of them indicate either insufficient knowledge or weak or lacking efficacy. Numerous studies on interactions, some of which are clinically significant, for St. John's wort with conventional drugs are available. Overall, although knowledge about herbal drugs has grown in recent years, it is generally still unsatisfactory. The active recommendation to use an herbal drug is usually not advisable. However, a patient's request for a licensed herbal drug may be acceptable if there is no conventional concomitant comedication that is known or expected to interact, no contra-indication, and no other (conventional) treatment with better, or better known, benefit-risk ratio.

Indexed as

Decision MakingEvidence-Based MedicineHumansPlant PreparationsRisk AssessmentTreatment OutcomePlant Preparations

Identifiers

PMID25301027
OpenAlexW2789736604

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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 Socratic graph.