THE EFFICACY AND SAFETY OF URTICA DIOICA IN TREATING BENIGN PROSTATIC HYPERPLASIA: A SYSTEMATIC REVIEW AND META-ANALYSIS
Keywords:Urtica dioica, lower urinary tract symptoms, benign prostatic hyperplasia, meta-analysis, Randomized controlled trial
AbstractBackground: Urtica dioica is extract from the root of a stinging nettle. Materials and Methods: We carried out a systematic review and meta-analysis to assess the efficacy and safety of Urtica dioica for treating Benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH). A literature review was performed to identify all published randomized double-blind, controlled trials of Urtica dioica for the treatment of BPH. The search included the following databases: MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Controlled Trials Register. The reference lists of the retrieved studies were also investigated. Results: Five publications involving a total of 1128 patients were used in the analysis. Primary efficacy end points: the international prostate symptom score (IPSS) (the standardized mean difference (SMD) =-10.47, 95% confidence interval (CI) =-18.12 to -2.82, p=0.007); the peak urinary flow rate (Qmax) (SMD=4.37, 95%CI=1.55 to 7.19, p=0.002) and prostate volume (SMD=-3.63, 95%CI=-4.67 to -2.57, p<0.00001) indicated that Urtica dioica was more effective than the placebo or controls. Safety assessments included prostatic specific antigen (PSA) (SMD=-0.08, 95%CI=-0.23 to 0.07, p=0.31) showed that PSA levels were unaffected in both groups. Conclusion: This meta-analysis indicates that Urtica dioica to be an effective and safe treatment for LUTS associated with BPH.
How to Cite
Copyright: Creative Commons Attribution CC.
This license lets others distribute, remix, tweak, and build upon your work, even commercially, as long as they credit you for the original creation. This is the most accommodating of licenses offered. Recommended for maximum dissemination and use of licensed materials. View License Deed | View Legal Code Authors can also self-archive their manuscripts immediately and enable public access from their institution's repository. This is the version that has been accepted for publication and which typically includes author-incorporated changes suggested during submission, peer review and in editor-author communications.