4.7 Review

Traditional plants with antioxidant properties in clinical trials-A systematic review

期刊

PHYTOTHERAPY RESEARCH
卷 35, 期 10, 页码 5647-5667

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/ptr.7202

关键词

antioxidant; clinical trials; plants; therapeutic effect

资金

  1. Taquari Valley University, Brazil
  2. Coordination of Improvement of Higher Education Personnel-Brazil (CAPES) [001]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

There is a trend towards utilizing natural substances from plants and vegetables, with a focus on foods rich in antioxidants. Clinical trials have shown that garlic and turmeric have high percentages of research in the prevention of oxidative stress. Studies highlight the importance of plants in optimizing antioxidant status, but caution against overstating their clinical efficacy.
There is a trend toward the use of natural substances present in plants and vegetables. In general, foods rich in antioxidants are complex matrices; therefore, understanding its absorption effects is extremely relevant to know its bioactive potential. Thus, this systematic review focused on clinical trials involving plants (or compounds) registered on the National List of Medicinal Plants of Interest to the Unified Health System (RENISUS) with antioxidant properties. Following the reporting guidelines of Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyzes studies of interest indexed in the PubMed and ClinicalTrials.gov databases were analyzed. Of the 59 clinical trials found, Allium sativum and Curcuma longa are the plant species with the highest percentage of clinical research. Prevention/attenuation of oxidative stress was one of the main antioxidant mechanisms indicated in the studies. The most tested compounds of the RENISUS plants in clinical trials were curcumin and soy isoflavone. In this review, we selected studies in advanced stages that highlight plants' value in optimizing antioxidant status; however, even with high-quality studies, it is not prudent to overstate the clinical efficacy of these plants.

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

4.7
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