Systematic review on medicinal plants used for the treatment of Giardia infection
Saudi Journal of Biological Sciences, ISSN: 1319-562X, Vol: 28, Issue: 9, Page: 5391-5402
2021
- 25Citations
- 38Captures
Metric Options: Counts1 Year3 YearSelecting the 1-year or 3-year option will change the metrics count to percentiles, illustrating how an article or review compares to other articles or reviews within the selected time period in the same journal. Selecting the 1-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year. Selecting the 3-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year plus the two years prior.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Metrics Details
- Citations25
- Citation Indexes25
- 25
- Captures38
- Readers38
- 38
Review Description
However, broad adoption of herbal remedies for giardiasis is at present hampered by uncertain findings of investigation not always sufficiently powered. This study was aimed at systematically reviewing the existing literature in herbal medicines to treat giardiasis. This review was carried out 06- PRISMA guideline and registered in the CAMARADES-NC3Rs Preclinical Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Facility (SyRF) database. The search was performed in five databases which are Scopus, PubMed, Web of Science, EMBASE, and Google Scholar without time limitation for all published articles ( in vitro, in vivo, and clinical studies). The searched words and terms were: “ Giardia ”, “giardiasis”, “extract”, “essential oil”, “herbal medicines”, “anti- Giardia ”, “ In vitro”, “In vivo ”, “clinical trial” etc. Out of 1585 papers, 40 papers including 28 in vitro (70.0%), 7 in vivo (17.5%), 2 in vitro/ in vivo (5.0%), and 3 clinical trials (7.5%) up to 2020, met the inclusion criteria for discussion in this systematic review. The most widely used medicinal plants against Giardia infection belong to the family Lamiaceae (30.0%) followed by Asteraceae (13.5%), Apiaceae (10.5%). The most common parts used in the studies were aerial parts (45.0%) followed by leaves (27.4%) and seeds (7.5%). The aqueous extract (30.0%), essential oil (25.4%) and hydroalcholic and methanolic (10.5%) were considered as the desired approaches of herbal extraction, respectively. The current review showed that the plant-based anti- Giardia agents are very promising as an alternative and complementary resource for treating giardiasis since had low significant toxicity. However, more studies are required to elucidate this conclusion, especially in clinical systems.
Bibliographic Details
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1319562X21004472; http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.sjbs.2021.05.069; http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?partnerID=HzOxMe3b&scp=85107744137&origin=inward; http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34466120; https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S1319562X21004472; https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.sjbs.2021.05.069
Elsevier BV
Provide Feedback
Have ideas for a new metric? Would you like to see something else here?Let us know