ReviewPlants (Basel, Switzerland)2026
Fresh Phytomedicines: Traditional Applications, Chemical Composition, Pharmacological Activities, Challenges, and Strategies.
Review in Plants (Basel, Switzerland), 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Fresh phytomedicines (FPs), defined as medicinal plants used in their fresh, undried state, have long been applied in traditional medical systems worldwide and represent a diverse yet underexplored source of bioactive compounds derived from classical prescriptions, ethnomedicinal practices, and medicine-food homology plants. Increasing evidence suggests that FPs possess distinct chemical and pharmacological properties compared with dried phytomedicines (DPs), although their therapeutic value has not been systematically evaluated from a modern medical perspective. This review integrates ethnomedicinal knowledge with modern pharmacological evidence to clarify the therapeutic potential of FPs, while comparing them with DPs and evaluating their potential role as context-dependent alternatives or complementary strategies that warrant further clinical investigation. A comprehensive literature search covering the period from 1956 to January 2026 was conducted across Web of Science, PubMed, Scopus, CNKI, ProQuest, and SciELO, followed by bibliometric analysis using VOSviewer 1.6.20. Available evidence indicates that FPs and DPs exhibit distinct physicochemical and pharmacological profiles. Drying enriches thermally stable constituents or leads to the formation of new compounds in DPs, whereas FPs better preserve thermosensitive and labile compounds, including polysaccharides, flavonoids, alkaloids, and volatile oils. These preserved constituents contribute to context-dependent activities such as antimicrobial, antioxidant, antidiabetic, and immunomodulatory effects. Although FPs offer unique therapeutic potential, their application is constrained by instability, limited standardization, inconsistent dosing, and insufficient clinical evidence, and future efforts should focus on improved preservation technologies, comprehensive quality standards, systematic dosage studies, and well-designed clinical trials to substantiate their clinical applicability and facilitate evidence-based integration into modern therapeutic frameworks.
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.