Skip to main content

Main menu

  • Home
  • Our journals
    • Clinical Medicine
    • Future Healthcare Journal
  • Subject collections
  • About the RCP
  • Contact us

Clinical Medicine Journal

  • ClinMed Home
  • Content
    • Current
    • Ahead of print
    • Archive
  • Author guidance
    • Instructions for authors
    • Submit online
  • About ClinMed
    • Scope
    • Editorial board
    • Policies
    • Information for reviewers
    • Advertising

User menu

  • Log in

Search

  • Advanced search
RCP Journals
Home
  • Log in
  • Home
  • Our journals
    • Clinical Medicine
    • Future Healthcare Journal
  • Subject collections
  • About the RCP
  • Contact us
Advanced

Clinical Medicine Journal

clinmedicine Logo
  • ClinMed Home
  • Content
    • Current
    • Ahead of print
    • Archive
  • Author guidance
    • Instructions for authors
    • Submit online
  • About ClinMed
    • Scope
    • Editorial board
    • Policies
    • Information for reviewers
    • Advertising

Adverse effects of herbal medicines: an overview of systematic reviews

Paul Posadzki, Leala K Watson and Edzard Ernst
Download PDF
DOI: https://doi.org/10.7861/clinmedicine.13-1-7
Clin Med February 2013
Paul Posadzki
Peninsula Medical School, Veysey Building, Exeter, Devon
Roles: honorary university fellow
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • For correspondence: Paul.Posadzki@pcmd.ac.uk
Leala K Watson
Peninsula Medical School, Veysey Building, Exeter, Devon
Roles: information specialist
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Edzard Ernst
Peninsula Medical School, Veysey Building, Exeter, Devon
Roles: emeritus professor
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
Loading

Abstract

This overview of systematic reviews (SRs) aims to evaluate critically the evidence regarding the adverse effects of herbal medicines (HMs). Five electronic databases were searched to identify all relevant SRs, with 50 SRs of 50 different HMs meeting our inclusion criteria. Most had only minor weaknesses in methods. Serious adverse effects were noted only for four HMs: Herbae pulvis standardisatus, Larrea tridentate, Piper methysticum and Cassia senna. The most severe adverse effects were liver or kidney damage, colon perforation, carcinoma, coma and death. Moderately severe adverse effects were noted for 15 HMs: Pelargonium sidoides, Perna canaliculus, Aloe vera, Mentha piperita, Medicago sativa, Cimicifuga racemosa, Caulophyllum thalictroides, Serenoa repens, Taraxacum officinale, Camellia sinensis, Commifora mukul, Hoodia gordonii, Viscum album, Trifolium pratense and Stevia rebaudiana. Minor adverse effects were noted for 31 HMs: Thymus vulgaris, Lavandula angustifolia Miller, Boswellia serrata, Calendula officinalis, Harpagophytum procumbens, Panax ginseng, Vitex agnus-castus, Crataegus spp., Cinnamomum spp., Petasites hybridus, Agave americana, Hypericum perforatum, Echinacea spp., Silybum marianum, Capsicum spp., Genus phyllanthus, Ginkgo biloba, Valeriana officinalis, Hippocastanaceae, Melissa officinalis, Trigonella foenum-graecum, Lagerstroemia speciosa, Cnicus benedictus, Salvia hispanica, Vaccinium myrtillus, Mentha spicata, Rosmarinus officinalis, Crocus sativus, Gymnema sylvestre, Morinda citrifolia and Curcuma longa. Most of the HMs evaluated in SRs were associated with only moderately severe or minor adverse effects.

Key Words
  • adverse effects
  • herbal medicine
  • safety
  • systematic reviews

Introduction

Herbal medicines (HMs) are popular in many countries, including the UK.1,2 The reasons for this widespread use are complex – see, for example, Ernst and Furnham (2000)3 and Ernst (2008)4 – but the assumption that ‘natural’ can be equated with ‘safe’ is certainly an important factor.5 However, this notion is dangerously misleading: HMs contain pharmacologically active ingredients, some of which have been associated with adverse effects (AEs).6–9

The aim of this article is to provide an overview and critical evaluation of evidence from systematic reviews (SRs) of AEs associated with the use of HM products. It is important to remember that it does not attempt to identify or define all AEs of HM products: in many cases, probable AEs have been implicated but were not documented in an SR.

Methods

Electronic literature searches were conducted in January 2012 to identify SRs of AEs of HMs used in any type of clinical condition. The following electronic databases were used: Medline and Embase (via Ovid), the Allied and Complementary Medicine Database (AMED), CINHAL (via EBSCO) and the Cochrane database. Search terms were constructed using ‘herbal medicine’ and ‘adverse events’ terms and their derivatives, medical subject heading (MeSH) terms and ‘review’ in the title of the article (details of the search strategy are presented in the supplementary Appendix S1). In addition, our own extensive department files were searched by hand.

No restrictions on language or time of publication were imposed. Abstracts of reviews thus located were inspected and those that seemed to meet the inclusion criteria were retrieved for further evaluation by both authors. Systematic reviews were defined as articles that included an explicit and repeatable method. To be included, SRs had to pertain to AEs of HMs in human patients or volunteers. If multiple SRs were found for one specific HM, the most up-to-date, methodologically sound and independent review was chosen. Mixtures of more than one HM were excluded. Non-systematic reviews and reviews pertaining to the effectiveness of HMs were also excluded.

The quality of the methods underlying all SRs was assessed independently by the two reviewers using the modified Oxman score.10,11 This is a validated instrument that consists of the following domains for assessing the quality of the methods of review articles: reporting of search methods and their comprehensiveness, repeatable eligibility criteria, avoidance of selection bias and supportiveness of conclusions. We scored each of the above criteria as 1 (fulfilled), 0 (partially fulfilled) or −1 (not fulfilled). A final result of 0 or lower means the review has major flaws, of 1–2 means minor flaws and 3–5 means minimal or no flaws.

Results

The searches generated 4,366 potentially relevant titles and abstracts, of which 4,316 were excluded (Fig 1). Fifty SRs met our inclusion criteria;12–61 these originated from Canada,21,22 Denmark,26 Germany,17,46 Italy,19,20,62 South Africa,41 the UK12,18,24,29 and the USA.13–16,23,25,27,28,30–40,42–45,47,50–61 In these SRs, adverse effects of the following HMs were evaluated: Agave americana,50 Aloe vera,52 Boswellia serrata,15 Calendula officinalis,16 Camellia sinensis,28 Capsaicin spp.,44 Cassia senna,61 Caulophyllum thalictroides,22 Cimicifuga racemosa,48 Cinnamomum spp.,21 Cnicus benedictus,53 Commifora mukul,36 Crataegus spp.,20 Crocus sativus,59 Curcuma longa,43 Echinacea spp.,24 genus Phyllanthus,26 Ginkgo biloba,29 Gymnema sylvestre,60 Harpagophytum procumbens,17 Herbae pulvis standardisatus,34 Hippocastanaceae,32 Hoodia gordonii,41 Hypericum perforatum,45 Lagerstroemia speciosa,38 Larrea tridentate,33 Lavandula angustifolia Miller,14 Melissa officinalis,35 Mentha piperita,51 Mentha spicata,57 Morinda citrifolia,42 Panax ginseng,18 Pelargonium sidoides,56 Perna canaliculus,54 Petasites hybridus,23 Piper methysticum,37 Rosmarinus officinalis,58 Salvia hispanica,39 Serenoa repens,12 Silybum marianum,25 Stevia rebaudiana,40 Taraxacum officinale,30 Thymus vulgaris,13 Trifolium pretense,27 Trigonella foenum-graecum,47 Vaccinium myrtillus,55 Valeriana officinalis,31 Viscum album46 and Vitex agnus-castus.19 A variety of safety concerns were raised, ranging from clinical AEs12,19,20,22,24,25,31,41,44,46,48 through effects on blood coagulation29 to a combination of drug interactions.13–17,21,23,27,32–40,45,47,50–61 The number of primary studies included in the SRs ranged from 138 to 216.28 The types of primary reports varied from case studies to epidemiological investigations. Some SRs also included secondary analyses such as review articles.15,23,45,47,51,52,59,61 One SR employed a meta-analytical approach.26

Fig 1.
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
Fig 1.

Flow diagram.

Thirty-one SRs concluded that the HM in question was safe.13–21,23–26,29,31,32,35,38,39,42–45,47,50,53,55,57–60 Fifteen SRs reported moderately severe AEs,12,22,27,28,30,36,40,41,46,48,49,51,52,54,56 and four SRs concluded that the HM in question was not safe (see Supplemental Tables S1 and S2).33,34,37,61 Thirteen SRs mentioned the duration of AEs,18,20,22,24,26,28,33,42,44–46,48,50 which ranged from 48 hours to 11 months. Forty-two SRs failed to mention conflict of interest of the authors.13–18,22,23,25–27,30–45,47–61 Thirty-two SRs made no mention of any source of funding.13–17,22,23,27,30,34–41,44,47,48,50–61

The quality of the methods of the included SRs was mixed (Table 1). Fifteen SRs had only minimal or no flaws (3–5 points on the modified Oxman scale),12,19–21,24–26,28,29,31,37,45,46,48 20 SRs had minor weaknesses (1–2 points)18,22,27,32,33,36,38,47,50–61 and 15 SRs had major flaws in their methods (≤0 points).13–17,23,30,34,35,39–44

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
Table 1.

Quality ratings for included systematic reviews of herbal medicines.

The HMs were used for a wide variety of clinical conditions, including allergic rhinitis;23 anxiety;14,37 asthma, Crohn's disease and ulcerative colitis;15 bronchitis or cough;13 cardiovascular diseases;20,32,39,40 common colds;56 constipation;61 diabetes;21,38,47,60 depression;45 dyspepsia;53 hyperlipidaemia;36 inflammatory skin conditions;16 insomnia;31 irritable bowel syndrome;34 liver disease;25 lower urinary tract infections or benign prostatic hyperplasia;12 menopausal symptoms;27,48 obesity;41 pain;44,30 pregnancy;22 prevention28 or treatment14,33,42,46 of cancer; rheumatic conditions;15,17,43,54 various clinical conditions18,19,24,29,51,52,55,57–59 and viral infections.26,35 Three SRs also included studies of healthy individuals.18,24,42

Discussion

This overview aimed to critically evaluate the data from SRs of AEs of HMs. Most SRs indicated that the HMs in question were reasonably safe.13–21,23–26,29,31,32,35,38,39,42–45,47,50,53,55,57–60 Only four SRs arrived at clearly negative conclusions about the safety of the reviewed HM.33,34,37,61

The AEs ranged from mild to severe. Mild AEs included pain,15,57,61 allergic reactions,13,17,19,20,21,24,36,37,53,58,59 burning sensation,44,51,55,57 constipation,23,34 dermatitis,50,57–59 diarrhoea,17,21,23,31,35,47,52,56,61 ‘difficulties’,16 dizziness,13,20,31,32,40 drowsiness,31 dry mouth,34 fatigue,12,45 gastrointestinal upset,15,19–21,23–26,30,32,36,37,39,43,45,48,53–56 headache18–20,25,31,32,34,35,36,45 loss of appetite,30 menstrual disorders,19 mouth burning,21 muscle spasm,32 muscle weaknesses,40 nausea,12,14,15,19,20,26,31,32,35,40,55,61 rash,24,48,56 sleep disorders18,35 and vomiting.14,21,23,30,53,61 Moderately severe AEs included anorexia, reversible neutropenia,14 coagulation abnormalities,29 confusion, slurred speech, blurred vision, sedation, hyper-reflexia,34 dysphagia, severe nausea,23 electroencephalogram (EEG) changes,35 increased fibrinolysis, inhibition of platelet aggregation,36 loss of consciousness,21 platelet aggregation,30 pruritis32 or vertigo, photophobia and mydriasis.34 Severe AEs included acute psychosis,34 cerebral haemorrhage, death,12,37,52 coma, respiratory arrest, tachycardia,37,51,56 hallucinations, convulsions, rhabdomyolysis and renal failure,36,51 acute lung injury,51,54 haemorrhage, circulation failure,20,56 hepatitis,41,48,52,54,61 hyperkalaemia,42,46 liver damage,28,30,42,46,61 nephrotoxicity,32 cirrhosis, liver failure,37,54 perinatal stroke, acute myocardial infarction, congestive heart failure,54 severe multiorgan hypoxic injury,22 carcinoma,33,61 perforation of the gastrointestinal tract,61 seizures and epilepsy.58

The large number of included SRs means that it is not easy to provide practical guidance through this labyrinth of HMs and multitude of AEs. Readers with an interest in one specific HM or one particular AE might look up the relevant SRs and refer to the primary reports. Readers with a more general interest in the safety of HMs would probably prefer to study those SRs that report serious AEs.33,34,37,61

The quality of the methods of some of the included SRs was frequently not optimal. This could be due to the fact that several of the articles were not designed as typical SRs. Many of the papers that scored poorly on quality were monograph-type publications, which are relatively frequent in the literature on HM. As these articles do nevertheless contribute relevant information, we decided to include them in our overview. Despite the fact that many SRs failed to achieve high-quality scores, we believe that virtually all of them contribute to our knowledge of AEs associated with HMs. In our view, none of the defects noted in Table 1 completely invalidates the SR in question. Even an SR that scored poorly on the formal quality rating can serve an important purpose when it alerts us to the risks associated with the HM in question.

Several challenges in methods and concepts were faced when undertaking this overview. We analysed data from SRs of AEs of specific HMs and omitted SRs of polyherbal preparations and effectiveness reviews (see Supplemental Table S3).63–81 It was frequently impossible to differentiate between herb–drug interactions and AEs, as these questions were addressed simultaneously. Herb–drug interactions, adulteration and contamination obviously can also cause AEs.1,82–84 Our plan is to address these issues in specific analyses to be published as separate overviews.

This overview has further limitations that must be kept in mind when interpreting the evidence. Although a comprehensive search strategy was employed, there is no guarantee that all relevant SRs have been located. All SRs are prone to publication bias, and so any such bias may have been transferred to our overview. As we only included SRs, our overview cannot provide information on HMs for which no SR is available. A comprehensive review of all information available to date regarding AEs of HM would be a monumental task that by far exceeds the possibility of a single journal article.85

The nature of the evidence reviewed here also requires a brief comment. Rigorous and comprehensive SRs of AEs should consider anecdotal data such as case reports. Such evidence is clearly relevant for assessing safety issues, but it does not lend itself to establishing cause and effect. We therefore ought to be cautious when interpreting such data and should critically question causality on a case-by-case basis.

In conclusion, numerous SRs of HMs have recently become available. Most of these SRs reveal mild adverse effects associated with HMs; however, some HMs might pose more severe health threats.

Funding

Paul Posadzki was supported by a fellowship from the Royal College of Physicians, London.

  • © 2013 Royal College of Physicians

References

  1. ↵
    1. Pittler MH
    Ernst E. Systematic review: hepatotoxic events associated with herbal medicinal products. Ailment Pharmacol Ther 2003; 18:451–71.doi:10.1046/j.1365-2036.2003.01689.x
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  2. ↵
    1. Hunt K
    Ernst E. Patients’ use of CAM: results from the Health Survey for England 2005. Focus Altern Complement Ther 2010; 15:101–3.
    OpenUrl
  3. ↵
    1. Ernst E
    Furnham A. BMWs and complementary/alternative medicine. Focus Altern Complement Ther 2000; 5:253–4.doi:10.1111/j.2042-7166.2000.tb02584.x
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  4. ↵
    1. Ernst E
    . The healthcare show: an evidence-free zone? Focus Altern Complement Ther 2008; 13:1–2.doi:10.1211/fact.13.1.0001
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  5. ↵
    1. Ernst E
    Pittler MH Wider B Boddy K. The desktop guide to complementary and alternative medicine, 2nd edition. Edinburgh: Elsevier Mosby, 2006.
  6. ↵
    1. Russmann S
    Helbling A. Kava hepatotoxicity. Ann Intern Med 2001; 135:68–9.
    OpenUrlPubMed
    1. Bajaj J
    Knox JF Komorowski PAC Saeian K. The irony of herbal hepatitis. Ma-Huang-induced hepatotoxicity associated with compound heterozygosity for hereditary hemochromatosis. Dig Dis Sci 2003; 48:1925–8.doi:10.1023/A:1026105917735
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    1. Chitturi S
    Farrell GC. Herbal hepatotoxicity: an expanding but poorly defined problem. J Gastroenterol Hepatol 2000; 15:1093–9.doi:10.1046/j.1440-1746.2000.02349.x
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  7. ↵
    1. Peters D
    . CAM: doing more good than harm. Focus Altern Complement Ther 2009; 14:176–8.doi:10.1211/fact.14.3.0006
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  8. ↵
    1. Ernst E
    Posadzki P Lee MS. Complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) for sexual dysfunction and erectile dysfunction in older men and women: an overview of systematic reviews. Maturitas 2011; 70:37–41.doi:10.1016/j.maturitas.2011.06.011
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  9. ↵
    1. Oxman AD
    Guyatt GH. Validation of an index of the quality of review articles. J Clin Epidemiol 1991; 44:1271–8.doi:10.1016/0895-4356(91)90160-B
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  10. ↵
    1. Agbabiaka TB
    Pittler MH Wider B Ernst E. Serenoa repens (saw palmetto): a systematic review of adverse events. Drug Saf 2009; 32:637–47.doi:10.2165/00002018-200932080-00003
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  11. ↵
    1. Basch E
    Ulbricht C Hammerness P et al. Thyme (Thymus vulgaris L.), thymol. J Herb Pharmacother 2004; 4:49–67.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  12. ↵
    1. Basch E
    Foppa I Liebowitz R et al. Lavender (Lavandula angustifolia Miller). J Herb Pharmacother 2004; 4:63–78.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  13. ↵
    1. Basch E
    Boon H Davies-Heerema T et al. Boswellia: an evidence-based systematic review by the Natural Standard Research Collaboration. J Herb Pharmacother 2004; 4:63–83.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  14. ↵
    1. Basch E
    Bent S Foppa I et al. Marigold (Calendula officinalis L.): an evidence-based systematic review by the Natural Standard Research Collaboration. J Herb Pharmacother 2006; 6:135–59.doi:10.1080/J157v06n03_08
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  15. ↵
    1. Brendler T
    Gruenwald J Ulbricht C Basch E. Devil's claw (Harpagophytum procumbens DC): an evidence-based systematic review by the Natural Standard Research Collaboration. J Herb Pharmacother 2006; 6:89–126.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  16. ↵
    1. Thompson Coon J
    Ernst E. Panax ginseng: a systematic review of adverse effects and drug interactions. Drug Saf 2002; 25:323–44.doi:10.2165/00002018-200225050-00003
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  17. ↵
    1. Daniele C
    Thompson Coon J Pittler MH Ernst E. Vitex agnus castus: a systematic review of adverse events. Drug Saf 2005; 28:319–32.doi:10.2165/00002018-200528040-00004
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  18. ↵
    1. Daniele C
    Mazzanti G Pittler MH Ernst E. Adverse-event profile of Crataegus spp.: a systematic review. Drug Saf 2006; 29:523–35.doi:10.2165/00002018-200629060-00005
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  19. ↵
    1. Dugoua JJ
    Seely D Perri D et al. From type 2 diabetes to antioxidant activity: a systematic review of the safety and efficacy of common and cassia cinnamon bark. Can J Physiol Pharmacol 2007; 85:837–47.doi:10.1139/Y07-080
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  20. ↵
    1. Dugoua J
    Perri D Seely D et al. Safety and efficacy of blue cohosh (Caulophyllum thalictroides) during pregnancy and lactation. Can J Clin Pharmacol 2008; 15:e66–73.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  21. ↵
    1. Giles M
    Ulbricht C Khalsa K et al. Butterbur: an evidence-based systematic review by the Natural Standard Research Collaboration. J Herb Pharmacother 2005; 5:119–43.doi:10.1080/J157v05n03_12
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  22. ↵
    1. Huntley AL
    Thompson Coon J Ernst E. The safety of herbal medicinal products derived from Echinacea species: a systematic review. Drug Saf 2005; 28:387–400.doi:10.2165/00002018-200528050-00003
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  23. ↵
    1. Jacobs BP
    Dennehy C Ramirez G et al. Milk thistle for the treatment of liver disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Am J Med 2002; 113:506–15.doi:10.1016/S0002-9343(02)01244-5
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  24. ↵
    1. Liu J
    Lin H McIntosh H. Genus Phyllanthus for chronic hepatitis B virus infection: a systematic review. J Viral Hepat 2001; 8:358–66.doi:10.1046/j.1365-2893.2001.00307.x
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  25. ↵
    1. Nelsen J
    Ulbricht C Barrette E et al. Red clover (Trifolium pratense) monograph: a clinical decision support tool. J Herb Pharmacother 2002; 2:49–72.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  26. ↵
    1. Sarma DN
    Barrett ML Chavez ML et al. Safety of green tea extracts: a systematic review by the US Pharmacopeia. Drug Saf 2008; 31:469–84.doi:10.2165/00002018-200831060-00003
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  27. ↵
    1. Savovic J
    Wider B Ernst E. Effects of Ginkgo biloba on blood coagulation parameters: a systematic review of randomised controlled trials. Evidence-Based Integrative Medicine 2005; 2:167–76.
    OpenUrl
  28. ↵
    1. Sweeney B
    Vora M Ulbricht C Basch E. Evidence-based systematic review of dandelion (Taraxacum officinale) by natural standard research collaboration. J Herb Pharmacother 2005; 5:79–93.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  29. ↵
    1. Taibi DM
    Landis CA Petry H Vitiello MV. A systematic review of valerian as a sleep aid: safe but not effective. Sleep Med Rev 2007; 11:209–30.doi:10.1016/j.smrv.2007.03.002
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  30. ↵
    1. Tiffany N
    Boon H Ulbricht C et al. Horse chestnut: a multidisciplinary clinical review. J Herb Pharmacother 2002; 2:71–85.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  31. ↵
    1. Ulbricht C
    Basch E Vora M et al. Chaparral monograph: a clinical decision support tool. J Herb Pharmacother 2003; 3:121–31.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  32. ↵
    1. Ulbricht C
    Basch E Hammerness P et al. An evidence-based systematic review of belladonna by the natural standard research collaboration. J Herb Pharmacother 2004; 4:61–90.doi:10.1080/J157v04n04_06
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  33. ↵
    1. Ulbricht C
    Brendler T Gruenwald J et al. Lemon balm (Melissa officinalis L.): an evidence-based systematic review by the Natural Standard Research Collaboration. J Herb Pharmacother 2005; 5:71–114.doi:10.1080/J157v05n01_01
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  34. ↵
    1. Ulbricht C
    Basch E Szapary P et al. Guggul for hyperlipidemia: a review by the Natural Standard Research Collaboration. Complement Ther Med 2005; 13:279–90.doi:10.1016/j.ctim.2005.08.003
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  35. ↵
    1. Ulbricht C
    Basch E Boon H et al. Safety review of kava (Piper methysticum) by the Natural Standard Research Collaboration. Expert Opin Drug Saf 2005; 4:779–94.doi:10.1517/14740338.4.4.779
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  36. ↵
    1. Ulbricht C
    Dam C Milkin T et al. Banaba (Lagerstroemia speciosa L.): an evidence-based systematic review by the Natural Standard research collaboration. J Herb Pharmacother 2007; 7:99–113.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  37. ↵
    1. Ulbricht C
    Chao W Nummy K et al. Chia (Salvia hispanica): a systematic review by the natural standard research collaboration. Rev Recent Clin Trials 2009; 4:168–74.doi:10.2174/157488709789957709
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  38. ↵
    1. Ulbricht C
    Isaac R Milkin T et al. An evidence-based systematic review of stevia by the Natural Standard Research Collaboration. Cardiovasc Hematol Agents Med Chem 2010; 8:113–27.doi:10.2174/187152510791170960
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  39. ↵
    1. Vermaak I
    Hamman JH Viljoen AM. Hoodia gordonii: an up-to-date review of a commercially important anti-obesity plant. Planta Med 2011; 77:1149–60.doi:10.1055/s-0030-1250643
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  40. ↵
    1. West BJ
    Jensen CJ Westendorf J White LD. A safety review of noni fruit juice. J Food Sci 2006; 71:R100–6.doi:10.1111/j.1750-3841.2006.00164.x
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  41. ↵
    1. Chainani-Wu N.
    Safety and anti-inflammatory activity of Curcumin: a component of tumeric (Curcuma longa). J Altern Complement Med 2003; 9:161–8.doi:10.1089/107555303321223035
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  42. ↵
    1. Johnson W
    . Final report on the safety assessment of Capsicum annuum extract, Capsicum annuum fruit extract, Capsicum annuum resin, Capsicum annuum fruit powder, Capsicum frutescens fruit, Capsicum frutescens fruit extract, Capsicum frutescens resin, and Capsaicin. Int J Toxicol 2007; 26:3–106.doi:10.1080/10915810601163939
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  43. ↵
    1. Hammerness P
    Basch E Ulbricht C et al. St. John's wort: a systematic review of adverse effects and drug interactions for the consultation psychiatrist. Psychosomatics 2003; 44:271–82.doi:10.1176/appi.psy.44.4.271
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  44. ↵
    1. Kienle GS
    Grugel R Kiene H. Safety of higher dosages of Viscum album L. in animals and humans – systematic review of immune changes and safety parameters. BMC Complement Altern Med 2011; 11:72.doi:10.1186/1472-6882-11-72
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  45. ↵
    1. Ulbricht C
    Basch E Burke D et al. Fenugreek (Trigonella foenum-graecum L. Leguminosae): an evidence-based systematic review by the natural standard research collaboration. J Herb Pharmacother 2007; 7:143–77.doi:10.1080/15228940802142852
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  46. ↵
    1. Borrelli F
    Ernst E. Black cohosh (Cimicifuga racemosa): a systematic review of adverse events. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2008; 199:455–66.doi:10.1016/j.ajog.2008.05.007
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  47. ↵
    1. Basch E
    Ulbricht C Harrison M et al. Alfalfa (Medicago sativa L.): a clinical decision support tool. J Herb Pharmacother 2003; 3:69–90.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  48. ↵
    1. Hackman D
    Giese N Markowitz J et al. Agave (Agave americana): an evidence-based systematic review by the Natural Standard Research Collaboration. J Herb Pharmacother 2006; 6:101–22.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  49. ↵
    1. Keifer D
    Ulbricht C Abrams T et al. Peppermint (Mentha piperita): an evidence-based systematic review by the Natural Standard Research Collaboration. J Herb Pharmacother 2007; 7:91–143.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  50. ↵
    1. Ulbricht C
    Armstrong J Basch E et al. An evidence-based systematic review of Aloe vera by the Natural Standard Research Collaboration. J Herb Pharmacother 2007; 7:279–323.doi:10.1080/15228940802153339
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  51. ↵
    1. Ulbricht C
    Basch E Dacey C et al. An evidence-based systematic review of blessed thistle (Cnicus benedictus) by the Natural Standard Research Collaboration. J Diet Suppl 2008; 5:422–37.doi:10.1080/19390210802519754
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  52. ↵
    1. Ulbricht C
    Chao W Costa D et al. An evidence-based systematic review of green-lipped mussel (Perna canaliculus) by the Natural Standard Research Collaboration. J Diet Suppl 2009; 6:54–90.doi:10.1080/19390210802690191
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  53. ↵
    1. Ulbricht C
    Basch E Basch S et al. An evidence-based systematic review of bilberry (Vaccinium myrtillus) by the Natural Standard Research Collaboration. J Diet Suppl 2009; 6:162–200.doi:10.1080/19390210902861858
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  54. ↵
    1. Ulbricht C
    Abrams TR Conquer J et al. An evidence-based systematic review of umckaloabo (Pelargonium sidoides) by the Natural Standard Research Collaboration. J Diet Suppl 2010; 7:283–302.doi:10.3109/19390211.2010.507116
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  55. ↵
    1. Ulbricht C
    Costa D Grimes Serrano J et al. An evidence-based systematic review of spearmint by the Natural Standard Research Collaboration. J Diet Suppl 2010; 7:179–215.doi:10.3109/19390211.2010.486702
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  56. ↵
    1. Ulbricht C
    Abrams T Brigham A et al. An evidence-based systematic review of rosemary (Rosmarinus officinalis) by the Natural Standard Research Collaboration. J Diet Suppl 2010; 7:351–413.doi:10.3109/19390211.2010.525049
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  57. ↵
    1. Ulbricht C
    Conquer J Costa D et al. An evidence-based systematic review of saffron (Crocus sativus) by the Natural Standard Research Collaboration. J Diet Suppl 2011; 8:58–114.doi:10.3109/19390211.2011.547666
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  58. ↵
    1. Ulbricht C
    Abrams T Basch E et al. An evidence-based systematic review of Gymnema (Gymnema sylvestre R. Br.) by the Natural Standard Research Collaboration. J Diet Suppl 2011; 8:311–30.doi:10.3109/19390211.2011.597977
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  59. ↵
    1. Ulbricht C
    Conquer J Costa D et al. An evidence-based systematic review of senna ( Cassia senna) by the Natural Standard Research Collaboration. J Diet Suppl 2011; 8:189–238.doi:10.3109/19390211.2011.573186
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  60. ↵
    1. Borrelli E
    . Evaluation of the quality of life in breast cancer patients undergoing lectin standardized mistletoe therapy. Minerva Med 2001; 92:105–7.
    OpenUrl
  61. ↵
    1. Boon H
    Wong J. Botanical medicine and cancer: a review of the safety and efficacy. Expert Opin Pharmacother 2004; 5:2485–501.doi:10.1517/14656566.5.12.2485
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    1. Cameron M
    Gagnier JJ Chrubasik S. Herbal therapy for treating rheumatoid arthritis. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2011;(2):CD002948.
    1. Chen XY
    Wu TX Liu GJ et al. Chinese medicinal herbs for influenza. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2007;(4):CD004559.
    1. Cheng CW
    Bian ZX Wu TX. Systematic review of Chinese herbal medicine for functional constipation. World J Gastroenterol 2009; 15:4886–95.doi:10.3748/wjg.15.4886
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    1. Chung V
    Liu L Bian ZX et al. Efficacy and safety of herbal medicines for idiopathic Parkinson's disease: A systematic review. Mov Disord 2006; 21:1709–15.doi:10.1002/mds.21008
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    1. Cui X
    Trinh K Wang YJ. Chinese herbal medicine for chronic neck pain due to cervical degenerative disc disease. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2010;(1):CD:006556.
    1. Ernst E
    . Herbal medicinal products during pregnancy: are they safe? BJOG 2002; 109:227–35.doi:10.1111/j.1471-0528.2002.t01-1-01009.x
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    1. Flower A
    Liu JP Chen S et al. Chinese herbal medicine for endometriosis. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2009;(3):CD006568.
    1. Guo R
    Pittler MH Ernst E. Herbal medicines for the treatment of COPD: a systematic review. Eur Respir J 2006; 28:330–8.doi:10.1183/09031936.06.00119905
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    1. Liu TT
    Shi J Epstein DH et al. A meta-analysis of Chinese herbal medicine in treatment of managed withdrawal from heroin. Cell Mol Neurobiol 2009; 29:17–25.doi:10.1007/s10571-008-9290-1
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    1. Martin KW
    Ernst E. Herbal medicines for treatment of fungal infections: a systematic review of controlled clinical trials. Mycoses 2004; 47:87–92.doi:10.1046/j.1439-0507.2003.00951.x
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    1. May BH
    Lit M Xue CCL et al. Herbal medicine for dementia: a systematic review. Phytotherapy Res 2009; 23:447–59.doi:10.1002/ptr.2656
    OpenUrlCrossRef
    1. Pittler MH
    Schmidt K Ernst E. Adverse events of herbal food supplements for body weight reduction: systematic review. Obesity Rev 2005; 6:93–111.doi:10.1111/j.1467-789X.2005.00169.x
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    1. Rathbone J
    Zhang L Zhang MM et al. Chinese herbal medicine for schizophrenia – Cochrane systematic review of randomised trials. Br J Psychiatry 2007; 190:379–84.doi:10.1192/bjp.bp.106.026880
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    1. Shi J
    Tong Y Shen JG Li HX. Effectiveness and safety of herbal medicines in the treatment of irritable bowel syndrome: a systematic review. World J Gastroenterol 2008; 14:454–62.doi:10.3748/wjg.14.454
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    1. Tu X
    Huang GM Tan SK. Chinese herbal medicine for dysfunctional uterine bleeding: a meta-analysis. Evid Based Complement Alternat Med 2009; 6:99–105.doi:10.1093/ecam/nem063
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    1. Zhu X
    Proctor M Bensoussan A et al. Chinese herbal medicine for primary dysmenorrhoea. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2008;(2):CD005288.
    1. Ulbricht C
    Weissner W Hashmi S et al. Essiac: systematic review by the Natural Standard Research Collaboration. J Soc Integr Oncol 2009; 7:73–80.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  62. ↵
    1. Qin F
    Wu X Tang Y et al. Meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials to assess the effectiveness and safety of free and Easy Wanderer Plus, a polyherbal preparation for depressive disorders. J Psychiatr Res 2011; 45:1518–24.doi:10.1016/j.jpsychires.2011.06.018
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  63. ↵
    1. Setty AR
    Sigal LH. Herbal medications commonly used in the practice of rheumatology: Mechanisms of action, efficacy, and side effects. Semin Arthritis Rheum 2005; 34:773–84.doi:10.1016/j.semarthrit.2005.01.011
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    1. Naser B
    Schnitker J Minkin MJ et al. Suspected black cohosh hepatotoxicity: no evidence by meta-analysis of randomized controlled clinical trials for isopropanolic black cohosh extract. Menopause 2011; 18:366–75.doi:10.1097/gme.0b013e3181fcb2a6
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  64. ↵
    1. Frazier T
    Krueger K. Hepatotoxic herbs: will injury mechanisms guide treatment strategies? Curr Gastroenterol Rep 2009; 11:317–24.doi:10.1007/s11894-009-0046-y
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  65. ↵
    1. Aronson JK
    . Meyler's side effects of herbal medicines. Oxford: Elsevier Science, 2008.
    1. Borrelli F
    Capasso R Aviello G et al. Effectiveness and safety of ginger in the treatment of pregnancy-induced nausea and vomiting. Obstet Gynecol 2005; 105:849–56.doi:10.1097/01.AOG.0000154890.47642.23
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    1. Canter PH
    Lee HS Ernst E. A systematic review of randomised clinical trials of Tripterygium wilfordii for rheumatoid arthritis. Phytomedicine 2006; 13:371–7.doi:10.1016/j.phymed.2006.01.010
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    1. Thompson Coon J
    Ernst E. Andrographis paniculata in the treatment of upper respiratory tract infections: a systematic review of safety and efficacy. Planta Med 2004; 70:293–8.doi:10.1055/s-2004-818938
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    1. Mehri A
    Hasani-Ranjbar S Larijani B Abdollahi M. A systematic review of efficacy and safety of Urtica dioica in the treatment of diabetes. Int J Pharmacol 2011; 7:161–70.doi:10.3923/ijp.2011.161.170
    OpenUrlCrossRef
    1. Pittler MH
    Ernst E. Feverfew for preventing migraine. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2004(1):CD002286.
    1. Vogler BK
    Ernst E. Aloe vera: a systematic review of its clinical effectiveness. Br J Gen Pract 1999; 49:823–8.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
Back to top
Previous articleNext article

Article Tools

Download PDF
Article Alerts
Sign In to Email Alerts with your Email Address
Citation Tools
Adverse effects of herbal medicines: an overview of systematic reviews
Paul Posadzki, Leala K Watson, Edzard Ernst
Clinical Medicine Feb 2013, 13 (1) 7-12; DOI: 10.7861/clinmedicine.13-1-7

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Share
Adverse effects of herbal medicines: an overview of systematic reviews
Paul Posadzki, Leala K Watson, Edzard Ernst
Clinical Medicine Feb 2013, 13 (1) 7-12; DOI: 10.7861/clinmedicine.13-1-7
del.icio.us logo Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One

Jump to section

  • Article
    • Abstract
    • Introduction
    • Methods
    • Results
    • Discussion
    • Funding
    • References
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics

Related Articles

  • PubMed
  • Google Scholar

Cited By...

  • A Review of Herbal and Pharmaceutical Galactagogues for Breast-Feeding
  • Google Scholar

More in this TOC Section

  • The new UK internal medicine curriculum 
  • The Francis Crick Institute
  • ‘Every breath we take: the lifelong impact of air pollution’ – a call for action
Show more Professional Issues

Similar Articles

FAQs

  • Difficulty logging in.

There is currently no login required to access the journals. Please go to the home page and simply click on the edition that you wish to read. If you are still unable to access the content you require, please let us know through the 'Contact us' page.

  • Can't find the CME questionnaire.

The read-only self-assessment questionnaire (SAQ) can be found after the CME section in each edition of Clinical Medicine. RCP members and fellows (using their login details for the main RCP website) are able to access the full SAQ with answers and are awarded 2 CPD points upon successful (8/10) completion from:  https://cme.rcplondon.ac.uk

Navigate this Journal

  • Journal Home
  • Current Issue
  • Ahead of Print
  • Archive

Related Links

  • ClinMed - Home
  • FHJ - Home
clinmedicine Footer Logo
  • Home
  • Journals
  • Contact us
  • Advertise
HighWire Press, Inc.

Follow Us:

  • Follow HighWire Origins on Twitter
  • Visit HighWire Origins on Facebook

Copyright © 2021 by the Royal College of Physicians