Estimating Adverse Events Associated With Herbal Medicines Using Pharmacovigilance Databases: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
BACKGROUND: Herbal medicines (HMs) are extensively used by consumers/patients worldwide. However, their safety profiles are often poorly reported and characterized. Previous studies have documented adverse events (AEs) associated with HMs, such as hepatotoxicity, renal failure, and allergic reactions. However, the prevalence rate of AEs related to HMs has been reported to be low. To date, no systematic review and meta-analysis has comprehensively analyzed the AEs of HMs using published data acquired from pharmacovigilance (PV) databases. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to (1) estimate the reporting rate of the AEs of HMs using PV databases and (2) assess the detailed data provided in AE reports. METHODS: In this systematic review and meta-analysis, MEDLINE/PubMed, SCOPUS, EMBASE, and CINAHL were systematically searched for relevant studies (until December 2023). The DerSimonian-Laird random effects model was used for pooling the data, and subgroup analyses, the meta-regression model, and sensitivity analysis were used to explore the source of heterogeneity. Crombie's checklist was used to evaluate the risk of bias (ROB) of the included studies. RESULTS: In total, 26 studies met the eligibility criteria. The reporting rate of the AEs of HMs ranged considerably, from 0.03% to 29.84%, with a median overall pooled estimate of 1.42% (IQR 1.12%-1.72%). Subgroup analyses combined with the meta-regression model revealed that the reporting rate of the AEs of HMs was associated with the source of the reporter (P=.01). None of the included studies provided full details of suspected herbal products, only the main ingredients were disclosed, and other potentially harmful components were not listed. CONCLUSIONS: This systematic review and meta-analysis highlighted risks related to HMs, with a wide range of reporting rates, depending on the source of the reporter. Continuous efforts are necessary to standardize consumer reporting systems in terms of the reporting form, education, and follow-up strategy to improve data quality assurance, aiming to enhance the reliability and utility of PV data for monitoring the safety of HMs. Achieving effective monitoring and reporting of these AEs necessitates collaborative efforts from diverse stakeholders, including patients/consumers, manufacturers, physicians, complementary practitioners, sellers/distributors, and health authorities. TRIAL REGISTRATION: PROSPERO (Prospective International Register of Systematic Reviews) CRD42021276492.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,005 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,009 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,002 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».