Home › Research › Prevention trials
Botanicals and phytochemicals active on cognitive decline: The clinical evidence
Cicero AFG, Fogacci F, Banach M.. Pharmacological research, 2017-12-28
Topic: Risk, prevention and care in population studies
Beyond the well-known effects on cognitive impairment of the Mediterranean diet, a number of studies have investigated the possible action on cognitive decline of different botanicals and phytochemicals, most of which are well-known anti-inflammatory or antioxidant agents with a good tolerability and safety profile. In particular, the current literature supports the use of Ginkgo biloba, resveratrol, epigallocatechin-3-gallate and l-theanine, Theobroma cacao, Bacopa monnieri, Crocus sativus and curcumin, which might have a positive impact on cognitive impairment used alone or in combination with other nutraceuticals or traditional drugs. Then, the aim of the present study was to review and comment the available evidence on botanicals and phytochemicals with a clinically demonstrable effect on cognitive decline. For this reason, we carefully reviewed studies published in English language from 1970 to April 2017 on botanicals and phytochemical claiming to show an effect on cognitive impairment in humans. Thus, the terms 'botanicals', 'dietary supplements', 'herbal drug', 'nutraceuticals', 'phytochemical', 'cognitive impairment', 'Alzheimer's disease', 'clinical trial', and 'humans', alone and in combinations, were incorporated into an electronic search strategy in both MEDLINE (National Library of Medicine, Bethesda, MD) and the Cochrane Register of Controlled Trials (The Cochrane Collaboration, Oxford, UK). As it emerges from this systematic review, the use of some phytochemicals and botanicals seems to be very promising in order to delay the onset and progression of neurodegenerative and other age-related diseases. However, further well-designed clinical research is certainly needed to finally confirm the efficacy and safety profile of these compounds.
Key findings
- Then, the aim of the present study was to review and comment the available evidence on botanicals and phytochemicals with a clinically demonstrable effect on cognitive decline.
- For this reason, we carefully reviewed studies published in English language from 1970 to April 2017 on botanicals and phytochemical claiming to show an effect on cognitive impairment in humans.
- Thus, the terms 'botanicals', 'dietary supplements', 'herbal drug', 'nutraceuticals', 'phytochemical', 'cognitive impairment', 'Alzheimer's disease', 'clinical trial', and 'humans', alone and in combinations, were incorporated into an electronic search strategy in both MEDLINE (National Library of Medicine, Bethesda, MD) and the Cochrane Register of Controlled Trials (The Cochrane Collaboration, Oxford, UK).
- As it emerges from this systematic review, the use of some phytochemicals and botanicals seems to be very promising in order to delay the onset and progression of neurodegenerative and other age-related diseases.
- However, further well-designed clinical research is certainly needed to finally confirm the efficacy and safety profile of these compounds.
New to this subject? Start with our plain-English guide: Prevention →
Study details
- Study designsystematic review
- Evidence strengthHigh
How this study scored 66/100
Published in a peer-reviewed journal, and it is a systematic review of all the studies on the question. Scored zero for sample size, effect reported and studied in people because the record does not state it. We have no data on journal's citation record, times cited, citations per year, impact for its field and year, cited by studies here, still being cited, senior author's track record, institution's track record and multi-centre collaboration, so those were left out: it earned 38 of the 58 points we could judge it on, which is 66 out of 100.
| Component | Points | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Journal tier | 7 / 10 | Tier 3 — peer-reviewed journal (Pharmacological research) |
| Journal's citation record | — / 4 | No journal record from OpenAlex — left out of this score |
| Study design | 12 / 12 | A systematic review of all the studies on the question |
| Strength of evidence | 5 / 5 | Rated “high” in our summary |
| Peer-review validation | 10 / 10 | Peer-reviewed. Published as an article in a named peer-reviewed journal. |
| How recent | 2 / 5 | 2018 — within 10 year(s) of the newest study here |
| Sample size | 0 / 4 | Participant count not stated — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Effect reported | 0 / 3 | No effect size reported — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Studied in people | 0 / 3 | Not stated whether this was studied in people — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Randomised / blinded | 0 / 2 | A review of other studies — randomisation is not credited here |
| Times cited | — / 7 | No citation count (not found in OpenAlex) — left out of this score |
| Citations per year | — / 5 | No citation count or no year — left out of this score |
| Impact for its field and year | — / 6 | No field-weighted citation impact (OpenAlex has none yet) — left out of this score |
| Cited by studies here | — / 6 | Not yet checked against this library's citation graph — left out of this score |
| Still being cited | — / 4 | No yearly citation counts — left out of this score |
| Senior author's track record | — / 4 | Senior author's record not available — left out of this score |
| Institution's track record | — / 3 | No institution listed in OpenAlex — left out of this score |
| Multi-centre collaboration | — / 3 | Institutions not listed — left out of this score |
| Indexed in PubMed | 2 / 2 | Indexed in PubMed (PMID 29289576) |
| Free to read | 0 / 2 | Behind a paywall — scores zero |
| Points | 38 / 58 | Scored on 11 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 38 of the 58 points we could judge it on is 66 out of 100. |
| Total | 66 / 100 | — |
What each of these 20 components measures, and what this score is not →
Read the original
Free copy unknown: no free-copy check has an answer for this record yet. That does not mean it is paywalled.
Cite this study APA, Vancouver, BibTeX · download .bib or .ris
Built from the record alzhub holds for this paper, not looked up. Volume, issue and page numbers are not held in the record. Check the citation against the original before you use it.
APA 7th
Cicero, A. F. G., Fogacci, F., & Banach, M. (2018). Botanicals and phytochemicals active on cognitive decline: The clinical evidence. Pharmacological research. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.phrs.2017.12.029
Vancouver
Cicero AFG, Fogacci F, Banach M. Botanicals and phytochemicals active on cognitive decline: The clinical evidence. Pharmacological research. 2018. doi:10.1016/j.phrs.2017.12.029. PMID: 29289576.
BibTeX
@article{cicero2018-29289576,
author = {Cicero, A. F. G. and Fogacci, F. and Banach, M.},
title = {{Botanicals and phytochemicals active on cognitive decline: The clinical evidence}},
journal = {Pharmacological research},
year = {2018},
doi = {10.1016/j.phrs.2017.12.029},
pmid = {29289576},
url = {https://doi.org/10.1016/j.phrs.2017.12.029}
}
Related studies in Prevention trials
Also tagged “cognitive-function”
1,118 studies in the library carry the topic tag “cognitive-function”; these are this study's neighbours in a fixed, alphabetical-by-hash tour of them, not the closest in content. All 1,118 tagged studies.