Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Review
. 2023 Oct:144:105471.
doi: 10.1016/j.yrtph.2023.105471. Epub 2023 Aug 19.

Improving the rigor and utility of botanical toxicity studies: Recommended resources

Deval Patel  1 , Barbara C Sorkin  2 , Constance A Mitchell  3 , Michelle R Embry  4 , Sharline Rina-Kong  1 , Rebecca E Adams  5 , Emily R DeTemple  6 , Aalekhya Reddam  7 , Stefan Gafner  8 , Olaf Kelber  9 , Cynthia V Rider  10 , Hellen Oketch-Rabah  11 , Amy L Roe  12 , Robin J Marles  13 , Joseph Dever  14 , Steven Dentali  15
Affiliations
Review

Improving the rigor and utility of botanical toxicity studies: Recommended resources

Deval Patel et al. Regul Toxicol Pharmacol. 2023 Oct.

Abstract

Interest in botanicals, particularly as dietary supplement ingredients, is growing steadily. This growth, and the marketing of new ingredients and combination products as botanical dietary supplements, underscores the public health need for a better understanding of potential toxicities associated with use of these products. This article and accompanying template outline the resources to collect literature and relevant information to support the design of botanical toxicity studies. These resources provide critical information related to botanical identification, characterization, pre-clinical and clinical data, including adverse effects and interactions with pharmaceuticals. Toxicologists using these resources should collaborate with pharmacognosists and/or analytical chemists to enhance knowledge of the botanical material being tested. Overall, this guide and resource list is meant to help locate relevant information that can be leveraged to inform on decisions related to toxicity testing of botanicals, including the design of higher quality toxicological studies.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Declaration of competing interest The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.

Figures

Figure 1:
Figure 1:
The number of studies on botanical toxicity over time in PubMed. Search was performed on 28 February 2023 with the query “((botanical) OR (herbal)) AND (toxicity)” from years 2002 to 2022.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Ahmad J, et al., 2021. Liver injury associated with kratom, a popular opioid-like product: Experience from the U.S. drug induced liver injury network and a review of the literature. Drug and Alcohol Dependence. 218, 108426. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Althubaiti A, 2016. Information bias in health research: definition, pitfalls, and adjustment methods. J Multidiscip Healthc. 9, 211–7. - PMC - PubMed
    1. American Botanical Council, ABC AHP NCNPR Botanical Adulterants Prevention Program. Vol. 2023. American Botanical Council, 2023.
    1. Applequist W, 2006. The identification of medicinal plants: a handbook of the morphology of botanicals in commerce. Missouri Botanical Garden Press.
    1. Brendler TG, S., Adulteration of Cranberry (Vaccinium macrocarpon). Botanical Adulterants Bulletin, 2017.

MeSH terms