Efficacy of the holy basil in the treatment of oral submucous fibrosis: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION. The review aimed to evaluate the therapeutic efficacy of holy basil (ocimum sanctum) in managing oral submucous fibrosis (OSMF), focusing on its impact on clinical symptoms such as burning sensation, mouth opening, tongue protrusion, cheek flexibility, blanching, and fibrosis. MATERIALS AND METHODS. A comprehensive search was conducted across PubMed-Medline, Scopus, Embase, Cochrane Library and Google Scholar from the earliest available date upto 5 th April, 2025. Studies included were randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies involving patients diagnosed with OSMF, assessing the efficacy of holy basil in any formulation (such as extract or oil) on clinical symptoms. Both Two reviewers independently performed data extraction and quality assessment using the Cochrane RoB 2.0 and ROBINS-I tools. Where appropriate, a metaanalysis (MA) was performed, where summarized raw mean (MRAW) standardized mean differences (SMDs) were calculated. RESULTS. A total of 7 studies met the inclusion criteria, comprising 5 observational and 2 experimental studies conducted in India between 2017 and 2023. The MA demonstrated significant improvements in maximal mouth opening with MRAW = 36.14 mm; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 22.3–49.98) and reduction in burning sensation (SMD = 2.6; 95% CI: 1.94–3.25) in patients receiving holy basil-based treatments. Substantial heterogeneity was noted for mouth opening outcomes (I 2 = 96%), whereas the results for burning sensation were relatively consistent across studies (I 2 < 50%). Secondary outcomes, such as cheek flexibility, were reported in only one study, restricting broader generalization. CONCLUSIONS. The findings suggest that Holy Basil, administered in various formulations, shows promising potential in improving key clinical symptoms such as maximal mouth opening, burning sensation, and tongue protrusion.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.014 | 0.026 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.019 | 0.030 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".