4.4 Review

Antifertility activity of medicinal plants

Journal

JOURNAL OF THE CHINESE MEDICAL ASSOCIATION
Volume 78, Issue 7, Pages 382-388

Publisher

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1016/j.jcma.2015.03.008

Keywords

antifertility agent; efficacy; literature review; medicinal plants

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The aim of this review was to provide a comprehensive summary of medicinal plants used as antifertility agents in females throughout the world by various tribes and ethnic groups. We undertook an extensive bibliographic review by analyzing classical text books and peer reviewed papers, and further consulting well accepted worldwide scientific databases. We performed CENTRAL, Embase, and PubMed searches using terms such as antifertility, anti-implantation, antiovulation, and antispermatogenic activity of plants. Plants, including their parts and extracts, that have traditionally been used to facilitate antifertility have been considered as antifertility agents. In this paper, various medicinal plants have been reviewed for thorough studies such as Polygonum hydropiper Linn, Citrus limonum, Piper nigrum Linn, Juniperis communis, Achyanthes aspera, Azadirachta indica, Tinospora cordifolia, and Barleria prionitis. Many of these medicinal plants appear to act through an antizygotic mechanism. This review clearly demonstrates that it is time to expand upon experimental studies to source new potential chemical constituents from medicinal plants; plant extracts and their active constituents should be further investigated for their mechanisms. This review creates a solid foundation upon which to further study the efficacy of plants that are both currently used by women as traditional antifertility medicines, but also could be efficacious as an antifertility agent with additional research and study. Copyright (C) 2015 Elsevier Taiwan LLC and the Chinese Medical Association. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available