SynthesisFrontiers in pharmacology2025
Effect of
Synthesis in Frontiers in pharmacology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Selective elimination of amyloid-β-induced senescent neuroblastoma cells by Moringa oleifera leaf extract.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Phenolic Compounds: From Traditional Uses to Innovative Applications and Everything in Between.Molecular nutrition & food research · 2026Review
- Moringa oleifera Lamk. as a Promising Adjunct Therapeutic Candidate: A Narrative Review of Human Studies and Published Case Reports.Drug design, development and therapy · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objectives: To summarize and critically assess the quality of evidence from Systematic reviews (SRs) and meta-analyses (MAs) that have evaluated the effectiveness of Methods: A systematic search of the literature was conducted from inception until 04 November 2024, using Embase, Scopus, Web of Science, PubMed/Medline, and Cochrane Library databases. The eligibility criteria were (i) SRs on MO; (ii) SRs on MO related to inflammatory diseases; (iii) No language, year, and model limitation. Literature selection and data extraction were conducted by two independent reviewers. The quality of SRs was evaluated using the PRISMA checklist and AMSTAR-2 tool adapted. Results and Discussion: Twenty-six SRs were included, covering a total of 573 primary articles. MO leaves were the most used parts of the plant; decoction was the main extraction method; ingestion of encapsulated powder, in tablets or added with a meal were the main method of preparation; water and ethanol were the most used solvents; and flavonoids, phenolic acids and isothiocyanates were the main constituents involved in the activities of MO. Many SRs showed a promising efficacy of MO for diabetes mellitus, obesity, cancer, hypertension, dyslipidemia, among other conditions, but the quality of these SRs is questionable. Only 6 SRs indicated that they followed PRISMA (2020), and, nevertheless, they did not reach even 80% of compliance with the checklist in our evaluation. The SRs was classified, predominantly, as of low methodological quality (≤7/16) after applying AMSTAR-2. NF-kB and Nrf2 appear to be the pathways involved in the anti-inflammatory and antioxidant mechanisms of MO, respectively. Conclusion: MO is promising herbal medicine for healthcare, beneficial for inflammatory diseases, however, considering the lower level of the quality of different studies, in which the majority displayed a lack of standardization in their protocol (dose and pharmaceutical form used, use of plant powder instead of the extract, type of extraction, identification and quantification of different phytochemical markers), more well-design studies are required to confirm the conclusion. Systematic Review Registration: Registration: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO, identifier CRD42022367195.
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.