Article

Garlic for the common cold

Faculty of Medicine, Dentistry & Health Sciences, University of Western Australia, Crawley, WA, Australia, 6009.
Cochrane database of systematic reviews (Online) (Impact Factor: 5.94). 07/2009; 11(3):CD006206. DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD006206.pub2
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT Background Garlic is popularly believed to be useful for the common cold. This belief is based on traditional use and some laboratory evidence that garlic has antibacterial and antiviral properties. On average, adults have two to four common colds per year. Study characteristics The evidence is current to the 7 August 2014. Of the eight studies identified, only one fulfilled the criteria for the review. This study assessed 146 participants over a three-month period. Half the participants took a placebo tablet and half took a garlic tablet during this time. The participants then wrote in a diary when they had symptoms of a cold. Key results The included study found that people who took garlic every day for three months (instead of a placebo) had fewer colds. That is, over the three-month period, there were 24 occurrences of the common cold in the garlic group, compared to 65 in the placebo group. When participants experienced a cold, the length of illness was similar in both groups (4.63 versus 5.63 days). Quality of the evidence More participants in the garlic group (four) than the placebo group (one) noted a smell when burping, so it is possible that blinding of participants was not adequate. However, other potential biases were well controlled. The only included study is directly relevant to the review question. Although the trial is small, there were enough participants to provide precise, reliable results. There is no evidence that results were selectively reported. However, this was possible as the outcomes do not appear to have been decided in advance. Considering the financial incentive for supplement companies to produce positive trials, it is also possible that trials that showed no effect of garlic were never published. Overall, the quality of the evidence is moderate. Side effects Possible side effects in this small trial included odour and a skin rash. More information is needed about the possible side effects of garlic.

Download full-text

Full-text

Available from: Marc Cohen, Jun 03, 2014
0 Followers
 · 
128 Views
 · 
30 Downloads
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Folk medicinal practitioners (Kavirajes) form the first tier of primary health care providers to most of the rural population of Bangladesh. Kavirajes use simple formulations of whole plant or plant parts from medicinal plants for treatment of various ailments. The medicinal plants used by the Kavirajes differ considerably in various areas of Bangladesh. The objective of the present study was to conduct a survey on medicinal plant usage by the Kavirajes of Daulatdia Ghat area in Kushtia district, Bangladesh. Interviews were conducted with the help of a semi-structured questionnaire and the guided field-walk method. Plant specimens as pointed out by the Kavirajes were collected and identified at the Bangladesh National Herbarium at Dhaka. It was observed that the Kavirajes of Daulatdia Ghat area used 49 plants distributed into 38 families for treatment of different ailments. The Fabaceae family contributed 4 plants followed by the Agavaceae family with 3 plants. Leaves and whole plants constituted the major parts used (24.6% each), followed by roots (22.8%) and fruits (7.0%). The Kavirajes treated a number of ailments or disorders. Gastrointestinal disorders were treated with 13 plants; skin disorders were treated with 9 plants; respiratory disorders were treated with 8 plants. Other disorders treated included leucorrhea (5 plants), sexual disorders (7 plants), diabetes (4 plants), rheumatism (5 plants), gall bladder stones (3 plants), fever (3 plants), urinary tract problems (3 plants), and pain (5 plants). The Kavirajes also treated debility, hepatic disorders, infections, poisoning, menstrual problems, heart diseases, typhoid, cuts and wounds, edema, measles, helminthiasis, piles, malaria, obesity, insanity, and ear and eye infections. Taken together, the medicinal plants used by the Kavirajes considerable potential for further scientific studies, which can lead to newer and more efficient drugs.
    American-Eurasian Journal of Sustainable Agriculture 01/2010; 4(2):219-229. · 2.54 Impact Factor
  • The Journal of allergy and clinical immunology 10/2010; 126(4):770-1. DOI:10.1016/j.jaci.2010.08.019 · 11.25 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Respiratory tract infections (RTIs) remain the commonest reason for acute consultations in primary care in resource-rich countries. Their spectrum and severity has changed from the time that antibiotics were discovered, largely from improvements in the socioeconomic determinants of health as well as vaccination. The benefits from antibiotic treatment for common RTIs have been shown to be largely overstated. Nevertheless, serious infections do occur. Currently, no clinical features or diagnostic test, alone or in combination, adequately determine diagnosis, aetiology, prognosis, or response to treatment. This narrative review focuses on emerging evidence aimed at helping clinicians reduce and manage uncertainty in treating RTIs. Consultation rate and prescribing rate trends are described, evidence of increasing rates of complications are discussed, and studies and the association with antibiotic prescribing are examined. Methods of improving diagnosis and identifying those patients who are at increased risk of complications from RTIs, using clinical scoring systems, biomarkers, and point of care tests are also discussed. The evidence for alternative management options for RTIs are summarised and the methods for changing public and clinicians' beliefs about antibiotics, including ways in which we can improve clinician-patient communication skills for management of RTIs, are described.
    British Journal of General Practice 12/2010; 60(581):e466-75. DOI:10.3399/bjgp10X544104 · 2.36 Impact Factor
Show more