Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35978741›Full record

ReviewCureus2022

Clinical Implications of Herbal Supplements in Conventional Medical Practice: A US Perspective.

Gashaw Hassen, Gizeshwork Belete, Keila G Carrera, Rosemary O Iriowen, Haimanot Araya, Tadesse Alemu, Nebiyou Solomon, Diwas S Bam, Sophia M Nicola, Michael E Araya and 3 more

Open access · diamondAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Cureus, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 40 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
40citing papers in PubMed
21.6field-weighted citation impact, top 1% 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

40 citing papers in PubMed, 74 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Insights into dietary supplements as popular product supporting the diet.Naunyn-Schmiedeberg's archives of pharmacology · 2026
    Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Effectiveness ofHealth science reports · 2025
    Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
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

13 authors at 9 institutions in 6 countries.

Gashaw HassenInternal Medicine, University of Maryland Capital Region Medical Center, Largo, USA.
Gizeshwork BeleteInternal Medicine, Saint Agnes Hospital, Baltimore, USA.
Keila G CarreraGastroenterology, Universidad de Oriente (VEN), Maturin, VEN.
Rosemary O IriowenPublic Health, Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, USA.
Haimanot ArayaGeneral Practice, Jimma University, Jimma, ETH.
Tadesse AlemuMedicine, Addis Ababa University, Addis Ababa, ETH.
Nebiyou SolomonMedicine, Addis Ababa University, Addis Ababa, ETH.
Diwas S BamInternal Medicine, Dirgh Jeevan Health Care and Research Center, Kathmandu, NPL.
Sophia M NicolaRheumatology, Howard University Hospital, Washington, DC, USA.
Michael E ArayaInternal Medicine, Northside Gwinnett Hospital, Lawrenceville, USA.
Tadesse DebeleFamily Medicine, Midwestern University Arizona College of Osteopathic Medicine, Kingman, USA.
Michlene ZouetrFamily Medicine, American Institute of Antigua College of Medicine, St. John's, ATG.
Nidhi JainMedicine and Surgery, Himalayan Institute of Medical Sciences, Dehradun, IND.
Addis Ababa University · ETAmerican University of Antigua · AGCapital Region Medical Center · USHoward University Hospital · USInstitute of Medical Sciences · INJimma University · ETMidwestern University · USSaint Agnes Hospital · USThomas Jefferson University · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Herbal supplements are common complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) approaches with an ever-increasing use trend in the last two decades among the US population. Self-medication with herbal supplements which are promoted for general well-being, weight loss, immunity, and memory boost, and mental and physical health claims are very prevalent. There is a misperception that herbal supplements are harmless as they are prepared from natural sources. Unlike conventional drugs, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) does not regulate herbal supplements for premarketing purity and potency. Hence, there is a growing concern for health risks due to misbranded toxic ingredients, contaminants, adulterants, and herb-drug interactions (HDI) with co-administered drugs. The spectrum of pharmacological and toxicological effects of herbal supplements includes deranged lab results, allergic reactions, genotoxicity, carcinogenicity, teratogenicity, organ damage, and even fatality contributing to sizable emergency visits and hospitalizations in the US. The use of herbal supplements should be carefully monitored in high-risk groups such as pediatric and geriatric populations, pregnant women, breastfeeding mothers, immunocompromised patients, and surgical candidates. The deleterious health effects of herbal supplements are loosely addressed in conventional medical practice in part due to the limited knowledge of practitioners. This comprehensive narrative review aims to explore the clinical implications of herbal supplements in order to fill the knowledge gaps by summarizing scientific publications. It also highlights the pivotal roles physicians can play in minimizing the health risks of herbal supplements by encouraging patients to disclose usage through a non-judgmental approach, employing HDI screening tools, and reporting adverse reactions to FDA. Formal training of physicians, a standardized pharmacovigilance system, stricter regulation of the herbal industry, and more scientific studies are keys to establishing herbal safety and efficacy in clinical practice.

Indexed as

complementary and alternative medicine(cam)conventional medicine (cm)fda-food and drug administrationherbal medicinesherbal productsherbal remediesherbal supplementsherb-drug interactions (hdi)phytotherapysafety and efficacy

Identifiers

PMID35978741
PMCPMC9375827
OpenAlexW4285492943

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.