AIM OF THE STUDY: This study aimed to systematically review all available evidence which purports to support these claims.
MATERIAL AND METHODS: The systematic review accorded with the Cochrane Collaboration framework and PRISMA reporting. Databases including MEDLINE, Excerpta Medica Database (EMBASE), Cochrane library database, and Google Scholar were searched by keywords, Yahom and Ya-hom. Pharmacological and toxicity data from non-animal and animal studies were included.
RESULTS: Twenty-four articles: 2 on in vitro cell lines or bacteria, 3 in vitro cell-free, 5 in vitro animal, 13 in vivo and 1 human mainly reported (A) Cardiovascular effects (i) transient hypotension (0.2-0.8g/kg, intravenous injection (i.v.)), increased cerebral blood flow (2g/kg, single oral) and vascular dilatation/relaxation (ii) elevated blood pressure (BP) (0.2-0.8g/kg, i.v. or 2-4g/kg oral) and vasocontraction. Single Yahom doses (3g) given to healthy volunteers had no effect on cutaneous blood flow, ECG or systolic BP although marginally increased diastolic BP was claimed. (B) Yahom (2-4g/kg) completely inhibited gastric acid secretion evoked by gastric secretagogues. (C) Toxicity: Chronic oral doses of selected Yahoms to rodents (0.001-1g/kg) supports its status as generally regarded as safe.
CONCLUSIONS: Most studies supported declared objectives relating to perceived Yahom actions, but lacked background demonstrating clinical efficacy, and mechanistic data that would validate conclusions. Our study suggests that research into traditional medicinal herbs needs underpinning by appropriate clinical interventions and pharmacovigilance, thereby optimising efficacy and minimizing toxicity by combining traditional wisdom and modern testing.
OBJECTIVE: To provide an overview of traditional medicinal claims, pharmacological properties, and phytochemical principles of P. kotschyi as a basis for its clinical applications and further research and development of new drugs.
METHODS: Through interpreting already published scientific manuscripts retrieved from different scientific search engines, namely, Medline, PubMed, EMBASE, Science Direct and Google scholar databases, an up-to-date review on the medicinal potentials of P. kotschyi from inception until September, 2020 was compiled. 'Pseudocedrela kotschyi', 'traditional uses', 'pharmacological properties' and 'chemical constituents' were used as search words.
RESULTS: At present, more than 30 chemical constituents have been isolated and identified from the root and stem bark of P. kotschyi, among which limonoids and triterpenes are the main active constituents. Based on prior research, P. kotschyi has been reported to possess anti-inflammatory, analgesic, antipyretic, anthelminthic, antimalaria, anti-leishmaniasis, anti-trypanosomiasis, hepatoprotective, antioxidant, antidiabetic, antidiarrheal, antimicrobial, and anticancer effects.
CONCLUSIONS: P. kotschyi is reported to be effective in treating a variety of diseases. Current phytochemical and pharmacological studies mainly focus on antimalaria, anti-leishmaniasis, anti-trypanosomiasis and anticancer potential of the root and stem bark of P. kotschyi. Although experimental data support the beneficial medicinal properties of this plant, there is still a paucity of information on its toxicity profile. Nonetheless, this review provides the basis for future research work.
CONCLUSION: This review will provide information on the causes and indicators of skin aging as well as examine studies that have used plants to produce anti-aging products.
METHODS: Using the PRISMA 2020 Protocol, a systematic search of the publications was undertaken from the MEDLINE, CENTRAL, Science Direct, PubMed, and Google Scholars for randomized control trials published through 31st January 2022 to determine the effectiveness of Salvadora persica-extract mouthwash relative to chlorhexidine gluconate as anti-plaque and anti-gingivitis properties.
RESULTS: A total of 1809 titles and abstracts were screened. Of these, twenty-two studies met the inclusion criteria for the systematic review while only sixteen were selected for meta-analysis. The overall effects of standardized mean difference and 95% CI were 0.89 [95% CI 0.09 to 1.69] with a χ2 statistic of 2.54, 15 degrees of freedom (p