ReviewAvicenna journal of phytomedicine
Therapeutic effects of herbal medicines in different types of retinopathies: A systematic review.
Review in Avicenna journal of phytomedicine. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- The Effects of Curcumin Plus Piperine Co-administration on Inflammation and Oxidative Stress: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.Current medicinal chemistry · 2025Pooled it
- Natural remedies proposed for the management of diabetic retinopathy (DR): diabetic complications.Naunyn-Schmiedeberg's archives of pharmacology · 2025Review
- Combination ofInternational journal of molecular sciences · 2025Article
- Evaluation of the monotherapy effect of crocin on mild-to-moderate diabetic retinopathy: A randomized clinical trial.Avicenna journal of phytomedicineArticle
- The hematopoietic potential of methanolic and aqueous extracts ofAvicenna journal of phytomedicineArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: Retinopathy is an ocular manifestation of systemic diseases such as diabetes and vascular diseases. Herbal drugs have been considered as an effective therapeutic option with minimal side effects for the treatment of retinopathy by reducing the symptoms and improving visual acuity. The purpose of this systematic review was to collect studies on the effectiveness of medicinal plants in the treatment or prevention of retinopathy. Materials and Methods: A systematic literature search was performed in PubMed, Scopus, Google Scholar, and other databases in April 2021 using "herbal products" and "Retinopathy" with all their equivalent and similar terms. For this purpose, human clinical trials with the English language were included and articles with subject irrelevancy were excluded from further evaluation. Results: Overall, 30 articles with 2324 patients were studied for possible effects of herbal therapy on retinopathy. From 30 included articles, different herbal products had been evaluated. Out of 30 selected articles, 11 articles were for the treatment of age-related macular degeneration (AMD), 14 articles covered patients with diabetic retinopathy, and the other five studies were for other retinal disorders. The outcomes in majority of the studies include changes in visual acuity (VA), fundus performance, best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA), central macular thickness (CMT), focal electroretinogram (fERG), supplements and adjuvant medications appeared to be more beneficial in patients with AMD and diabetic maculopathy. Conclusion: Herbal therapy can be considered as a potential candidate in the adjuvant and complementary therapies of retinopathy. However, further studies are required to verify such efficiency.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.