MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4281484726 · doi:10.2196/38542

Use of Bacopa monnieri in the Treatment of Dementia Due to Alzheimer Disease: Systematic Review of Randomized Controlled Trials

2022· review· en· W4281484726 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Aneesh Basheer, Ayush Agarwal, Biswamohan Mishra, Anu Gupta, M.V. Padma Srivastava, Richard Kirubakaran, Venugopalan Y. Vishnu

Bibliographic record

VenueInteractive Journal of Medical Research · 2022
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMedicinal Plants and Neuroprotection
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersIndian Council of Medical Research
KeywordsBacopa monnieriDementiaMedicineRandomized controlled trialCochrane LibraryPlaceboInternal medicineAlzheimer's diseaseClinical trialDiseasePharmacologyPathologyAlternative medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Bacopa monnieri, a herb that has been used for many centuries in India, has shown neuroprotective effects in animal and in vitro studies; human studies on patients with Alzheimer disease have been inconclusive. OBJECTIVE: The primary objective of this review was to determine the clinical efficacy and safety of B. monnieri in persons with mild, moderate, or severe dementia, or mild cognitive impairment, due to Alzheimer disease. METHODS: We searched PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, clinical trial registries (World Health Organization, Australia-New Zealand, United States, and South Africa), the metaRegister of Controlled Trials, and CINAHL. We intended to include all randomized and quasi-randomized controlled trials that compared B. monnieri, its extract or active ingredients (at any dosage), with a placebo or a cholinesterase inhibitor among adults with dementia due to Alzheimer disease and in those with mild cognitive impairment due to Alzheimer disease. RESULTS: Our comprehensive search yielded 5 eligible studies. A total of 3 studies used B. monnieri in combination with herbal extracts while the remaining 2 used B. monnieri extracts only. Two studies compared B. monnieri with donepezil while the others used a placebo as the control. There was considerable variation in the B. monnieri dose used (ranging between 125 mg to 500 mg twice daily) and heterogeneity in treatment duration, follow-up, and outcomes. The major outcomes were Mini-Mental State Examination scores reported in 3 trials, Cognitive subscale scores of the Alzheimer's Disease Assessment Scale in 1 study, and a battery of cognitive tests in 2 studies. Using the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool, overall, we judged all 5 studies to be at high risk of bias. While all studies reported a statistically significant difference between B. monnieri and the comparator in at least one outcome, we rated the overall quality of evidence for the Alzheimer's Disease Assessment Scale-Cognitive Subscale, Postgraduate Institute Memory Scale, Mini-Mental State Examination, and Wechsler Memory Scale to be very low due to downgrading by 2 levels for high risk of bias and 1 more level for impreciseness due to small sample sizes and wide CIs. CONCLUSIONS: There was no difference between B. monnieri and the placebo or donepezil in the treatment of Alzheimer disease based on very low certainty evidence. No major safety issues were reported in the included trials. Future randomized controlled trials should aim to recruit more participants and report clinically meaningful outcomes. TRIAL REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42020169421; https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=169421.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.009
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.031
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.013
Threshold uncertainty score0.050

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0090.031
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0130.011
Bibliometrics0.0070.008
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.357
GPT teacher head0.544
Teacher spread0.187 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations30
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInteractive Journal of Medical ResearchSame topicMedicinal Plants and NeuroprotectionFrench-language works237,207