ReviewPhytotherapy research : PTR2026
Ashwagandha: Is It Safe? Part 2: A Preclinical Evidence Review.
Review in Phytotherapy research : PTR, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Ashwagandha: Is It Safe? Part 2: A Preclinical Evidence Review.Phytotherapy research : PTR · 2026Review
- Ashwagandha: Is It Safe? Part 1: A Regulatory Review.Phytotherapy research : PTR · 2026Review
- Is Ashwagandha an Abortifacient?Phytotherapy research : PTR · 2026Article
- Evaluation of Potential Hormonal Activities of Ashwagandha (Withania somnifera).Phytotherapy research : PTR · 2026Review
- Back to the Roots: Safety and Tolerability of Standardised Ashwagandha (Pharmaceuticals (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The preclinical evidence for the safety of ashwagandha ( Withania somnifera (L.) Dunal, AS) is reviewed, and its preparations (extracts) and constituents, from the general toxicity in animal models to in vitro and cell culture studies, which may elucidate mechanisms of action and explain clinical case reports. Most studies and reviews conclude that AS is a remarkably safe herb, but cases of liver toxicity, mainly reversible cholestasis or severe jaundice and pruritus, have been reported without being predicted by preclinical evidence. Further work is needed to clarify the constituents responsible and patient-related issues surrounding them. Several constituents, such as withaferin-A, have demonstrable antitumorigenic effects in animal models of liver cancer and injury induced by ischemia, cytotoxic drugs, and radiotherapy. AS has not shown genotoxicity or mutagenicity in standard tests; on the contrary, it was protective against chromosome abnormalities or micronuclei formation induced by known clastogenic agents. A folkloric reputation for inducing abortion or sterility is not borne out of preclinical experiments, and rare reports of cardiotoxicity could not be substantiated.
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.