4.4 Article

The Use of Ginger (Zingiber officinale) for the Treatment of Pain: A Systematic Review of Clinical Trials

期刊

PAIN MEDICINE
卷 12, 期 12, 页码 1808-1818

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1111/j.1526-4637.2011.01261.x

关键词

Pain; Zingiber officinale; Systematic Review

资金

  1. Pilkington Family Trusts

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background. Zingiber officinale (Z. officinale), commonly known as ginger, has been widely used traditionally for a variety of medicinal purposes, one of which is for the treatment of pain. The aim of this systematic review was to evaluate the evidence from all human participant clinical trials that have assessed the efficacy of ginger for the treatment of any type of pain. Methods. Following a protocol, multiple databases were sought using comprehensive search strategies for Z. officinale and pain together with a trial filter for randomized or controlled clinical trials. Trials testing the efficacy of Z. officinale, used as a sole oral treatment against a comparison condition in human adults suffering from any pain condition, were included. Results. Seven published articles, reporting a total of eight trials (481 participants), were included in the review. Six trials (two for osteoarthritis, one for dysmenorrhea, and three for experimentally induced acute muscle pain) found that the use of Z. officinale reduced subjective pain reports. The methodological quality of the included articles was variable. When assessed using the Jadad scale, which allows 1808 a score of between 0 and 5 to be given, included articles obtained Jadad ratings ranging from 2 to 5. Conclusion. Due to a paucity of well-conducted trials, evidence of the efficacy of Z officinale to treat pain remains insufficient. However, the available data provide tentative support for the anti-inflammatory role of Z. officinale constituents, which may reduce the subjective experience of pain in some conditions such as osteoarthritis. Further rigorous trials therefore seem to be warranted.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据