中文(简体)
Albanian
Arabic
Armenian
Azerbaijani
Belarusian
Bengali
Bosnian
Catalan
Czech
Danish
Deutsch
Dutch
English
Estonian
Finnish
Français
Greek
Haitian Creole
Hebrew
Hindi
Hungarian
Icelandic
Indonesian
Irish
Italian
Japanese
Korean
Latvian
Lithuanian
Macedonian
Mongolian
Norwegian
Persian
Polish
Portuguese
Romanian
Russian
Serbian
Slovak
Slovenian
Spanish
Swahili
Swedish
Turkish
Ukrainian
Vietnamese
Български
中文(简体)
中文(繁體)
Journal of Clinical Pharmacy and Therapeutics 2010-Feb

Phytotherapeutics: an evaluation of the potential of 1000 plants.

只有注册用户可以翻译文章
登陆注册
链接已保存到剪贴板
G Cravotto
L Boffa
L Genzini
D Garella

关键词

抽象

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this review is to evaluate and summarize the available scientific information on the commonest plant extracts marketed in Western countries. In view of the intense, ongoing search for new plant extracts with powerful anti-inflammatory activity, we paid particular attention to this topic. The aim is to provide broad coverage of as many potentially useful plants as possible and then to focus on those with the greatest therapeutic potential.

METHODS

Our bibliographic sources were the SciFinder databases: CAPLUS, MEDLINE, REGISTRY, CASREACT, CHEMLIST, CHEMCATS (update to October 2007). In order to assess the value of clinical trials, we focused a specific search on clinical investigations concerning nine plants with the most trial data, viz., Althaea officinalis, Calendula officinalis, Centella asiatica, Echinacea purpurea, Passiflora incarnata, Punica granatum, Vaccinium macrocarpon, Vaccinium myrtillus, Valeriana officinalis. This was carried out in several databases (update to June 2008): ISI Web of Knowledge(SM) (ISI WoK), SciFinder (CAPLUS, MEDLINE, REGISTRY, CASREACT, CHEMLIST, CHEMCATS) and PubMed (indexed for MEDLINE).

RESULTS

Our survey covers roughly a 1000 plants, although clinical trials have been published only for 156 plants supporting specific pharmacological activities and therapeutic applications. However, for about half of the plants, in vitro and in vivo studies provide some support for therapeutic use. For one-fifth of the plants included in our search, only phytochemical studies were found. Their properties and indications were often attributed to the presence of certain compounds, but no evidence concerning the activities of the whole extracts was presented. We found that for about 12% of the plants, currently available on the Western market, no substantial studies on their properties had been published, while there was strong evidence that 1 in 200 were toxic or allergenic, so that their use ought to be discouraged or forbidden. Nine plants had considerable evidence of therapeutic effect, viz., A. officinalis, Calendula officinalis, Centella asiatica, E. purpurea, Passiflora incarnata, Punica granatum, Vaccinium macrocarpon, Vaccinium myrtillus, Valeriana officinalis.

CONCLUSIONS

The present review provides a baseline on the level of evidence available on many herbal preparations and should be of help to those intending to research further on these topics.

加入我们的脸书专页

科学支持的最完整的草药数据库

  • 支持55种语言
  • 科学支持的草药疗法
  • 通过图像识别草药
  • 交互式GPS地图-在位置标记草药(即将推出)
  • 阅读与您的搜索相关的科学出版物
  • 通过药效搜索药草
  • 组织您的兴趣并及时了解新闻研究,临床试验和专利

输入症状或疾病,并阅读可能有用的草药,输入草药并查看所使用的疾病和症状。
*所有信息均基于已发表的科学研究

Google Play badgeApp Store badge