Search PubMed⌕ Search

PubMed · 12537169

Echinacea.

Abstract

Echinacea is the name of a genus of native North American plants, commonly known as the purple coneflower. The most widely used herbal product in the United States is a liquid extract made from the root of Echinacea purpurea. Because the active component of the plant has not been identified, commercial echinacea products are not typically standardized to any particular component. The research literature on echinacea is difficult to evaluate because of the heterogeneity of the products used in various studies. The herb has been recommended as a prophylactic treatment for upper respiratory infection and is widely used for this indication. However, based on the current literature, it appears that prophylactic echinacea does not have a significant impact on the frequency, severity, or duration of upper respiratory infection. The data regarding treatment of upper respiratory infection appear to support a modest positive effect. No significant herb-drug interactions with echinacea have been reported; adverse effects reported generally have been uncommon and minor, including abdominal upset, nausea, and dizziness.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Benjamin Kligler. 2003-01-01. Echinacea.. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/12537169/

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

Complementary medicine: is it more acceptable in palliative care practice?

Some complementary health modalities have found a well-accepted place in palliative care. The interdisciplinary nature of palliative care underlies the common acceptance of complementary therapies in this field of care. The experience of the interdisciplinary approach in palliative care may presage current changes in attitude towards complementary therapies in other areas of medicine. Growing collegiality and interdisciplinary teamwork in healthcare is encouraging the medical profession to see beyond scientific reservations and view complementary modalities as providing supportive roles.

Complementary Therapies↗

Methodological differences in clinical trials evaluating nonpharmacological and pharmacological treatments of hip and knee osteoarthritis.

CONTEXT: Randomized controlled trials have been developed essentially in the context of pharmacological treatments (ie, oral drugs; intra-articular injection; and topical, intramuscular, and intravenous treatments), but assessment of the effectiveness of nonpharmacological treatments (ie, surgery, arthroscopy, joint lavage, rehabilitation, acupuncture, and education) presents specific issues. OBJECTIVES: To compare the quality of articles of nonpharmacological and pharmacological treatments of hip and knee osteoarthritis and to identify specific methodological issues related to assessment of nonpharmacological treatments. DESIGN AND SETTING: We searched MEDLINE and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials for articles of randomized controlled trials published between January 1, 1992, and February 28, 2002, in 28 general medical and specialty journals with high impact factors and assessing nonpharmacological and pharmacological treatments in patients with hip or knee osteoarthritis. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The quality of the methods reported in the selected articles was assessed by 2 independent reviewers using the Jadad scale, the Delphi list, and guidelines found in the Users' Guides to the Medical Literature. Investigators also used a checklist of items developed by the authors to analyze study characteristics. RESULTS: A total of 110 articles were included in the analysis; 50 (45.5%) assessed nonpharmacological treatments and 60 (54.5%) assessed pharmacological treatments. Reports of nonpharmacological treatments had a lower global quality score than did reports of pharmacological treatments as measured by the Jadad scale (mean [SD] score, 1.4 [1.3] vs 3.0 [1.3]) and the Delphi list (mean [SD] score, 5.2 [1.5] vs 7.5 [1.1]). Lack of reporting adequate random sequence generation and intention-to-treat analyses were found in both nonpharmacological and pharmacological articles. Nonpharmacological treatments were less often compared with a placebo than were pharmacological treatments (28.0% of articles vs 71.7%). Compared with pharmacological articles, nonpharmacological articles less often described blinding of patients (26.0% vs 96.7%), care providers (6.0% vs 81.7%), and outcome assessors (68.0% vs 98.3%). Care providers' skill levels could influence treatment effect in 84.0% of nonpharmacological articles vs 23.3% of pharmacological articles. CONCLUSIONS: In this analysis of reports of hip and knee osteoarthritis therapy, nonpharmacological articles scored lower than pharmacological articles in terms of quality. Assessments of nonpharmacological treatments must take into consideration additional methodological issues.

Complementary Therapies↗