• Medicine · Apr 2021

    Meta Analysis

    Evaluation of clinical trials for natural products used in diabetes: An evidence-based systemic literature review.

    • Rizwan Ahmad, Lina Hussain AlLehaibi, Hind Nasser AlSuwaidan, Ali Fuad Alghiryafi, Lyla Shafiq Almubarak, Khawlah Nezar AlKhalifah, Hawra Jassim AlMubarak, and Majed Ali Alkhathami.
    • Natural Products and Alternative Medicines, College of Clinical Pharmacy, Imam Abdul Rahman Bin Faisal University, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia.
    • Medicine (Baltimore). 2021 Apr 23; 100 (16): e25641e25641.

    Background RelevanceA plethora of literature is available regarding the clinical trials for natural products however; no information is available for critical assessments of the quality of these clinical trials.Aim Of StudyThis is a first time report to critically evaluate the efficacy, safety and large scale applications of up-to-date clinical trials for diabetes, based on the three scales of Jadad, Delphi, and Cochrane.MethodologyAn in-depth and extensive literature review was performed using various databases, journals, and books. The keywords searched included, "clinical trials," "clinical trial in diabetes," "diabetes," "natural products in diabetes," "ethnopharmacological relevance of natural products in diabetes," etc.ResultsBased on eligibility criteria, 16 plants with 74 clinical trials were found and evaluated. Major drawbacks observed were; "non-randomization and blindness of the studies," "non-blindness of patients/healthcare/outcome assessors," "lack of patient compliance and co-intervention reports," "missing information regarding drop-out/withdrawal procedures," and "inappropriate baseline characteristics." Principal component analysis and Pearson correlation revealed four components with %variability; PC1: 23.12, PC2: 15.83, PC3: 13.11, and PC4: 11.38 (P ≤ .000). According to descriptive statistics, "non-blinding of outcome assessors" was the major drawback (82%) whereas, "not mentioning the timing of outcome assessment" was observed lowest (6.8%). An in-house quality grading (scale 0-24) classified these clinical trials as; poor (67.6%), acceptable (19.9%), and good quality trials (13.5%).ConclusionProper measures in terms of more strict regulations with pharmacovigilance of plants are utmost needed in order to achieve quality compliance of clinical trials.Copyright © 2021 the Author(s). Published by Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc.

      Pubmed     Free full text   Copy Citation     Plaintext  

      Add institutional full text...

    Notes

     
    Knowledge, pearl, summary or comment to share?
    300 characters remaining
    help        
    You can also include formatting, links, images and footnotes in your notes
    • Simple formatting can be added to notes, such as *italics*, _underline_ or **bold**.
    • Superscript can be denoted by <sup>text</sup> and subscript <sub>text</sub>.
    • Numbered or bulleted lists can be created using either numbered lines 1. 2. 3., hyphens - or asterisks *.
    • Links can be included with: [my link to pubmed](http://pubmed.com)
    • Images can be included with: ![alt text](https://bestmedicaljournal.com/study_graph.jpg "Image Title Text")
    • For footnotes use [^1](This is a footnote.) inline.
    • Or use an inline reference [^1] to refer to a longer footnote elseweher in the document [^1]: This is a long footnote..

    hide…