Lack of herbal supplement characterization in published randomized controlled trials



      Herbal supplements in the United States and abroad have poor quality control and high content variability. We assessed the extent to which recently published randomized controlled trials of herbal supplements characterized and verified the content of the supplement under study.


      We identified all MEDLINE-indexed English language randomized controlled trials evaluating single-herb preparations of echinacea, garlic, ginkgo, saw palmetto, or St. John’s wort that were published between January 1, 2000, and February 9, 2004. From each article we extracted information characterizing the herbal supplement studied.


      Of 81 randomized controlled trials meeting inclusion criteria, 12 (15%) reported performing tests to quantify actual contents, and 3 (4%) provided adequate data to compare actual with expected content values of at least one chemical constituent. In those 3 studies, actual content varied between 80% and 113% of expected values. Studies of higher overall quality (Jadad score ≥3) performed testing somewhat less frequently (5/54; 9%) than those with lower Jadad scores (7/27; 26%) (P = .09).


      Documented characterization of herbal supplements in published randomized controlled trials is inadequate. Investigators may be unaware of the extent to which herbal quality-control issues may detract from the value of otherwise well-designed clinical trials. The scientific and clinical utility of future herbal randomized controlled trials would be enhanced if authors provided evidence that the herbal products studied were of high quality.


      To read this article in full you will need to make a payment

      Purchase one-time access:

      Academic & Personal: 24 hour online accessCorporate R&D Professionals: 24 hour online access
      One-time access price info
      • For academic or personal research use, select 'Academic and Personal'
      • For corporate R&D use, select 'Corporate R&D Professionals'


      Subscribe to The American Journal of Medicine
      Already a print subscriber? Claim online access
      Already an online subscriber? Sign in
      Institutional Access: Sign in to ScienceDirect


        • Garrard J.
        • Harms S.
        • Eberly L.
        • Matiak A.
        Variations in product choices of frequently purchased herbs.
        Arch Intern Med. 2003; 163: 2290-2295
        • Draves A.H.
        • Walker S.E.
        Analysis of the hypericin and pseudohypericin content of commercially available St. John’s wort preparations.
        Can J Clin Pharmacol. 2003; 10: 114-118
        • Gilroy C.
        • Steiner J.
        • Byers T.
        • Shapiro H.
        • Georgian W.
        Echinacea and truth in labeling.
        Arch Intern Med. 2003; 163: 699-704
        • Constantine G.H.
        • Karchesy J.
        Variations in hypericin concentrations in Hypericum perforatum commercial products.
        Pharm Biol. 1998; 36: 365-367
        • Gurley B.
        • Gardner S.
        • Hubbard M.
        Content versus label claim in ephedra-containing dietary supplements.
        Am J Health Syst Pharm. 2000; 57: 963
        • Hall T.
        • Lu Z.Z.
        • Yat P.
        • et al.
        Evaluation of consistency of standardized Asian Ginseng products in the Ginseng evaluation program.
        HerbalGram. 2001; 52: 31-45
        • Katan M.
        Health claims for functional foods.
        Br Med J. 2004; 328: 180
        • Kressmann S.
        • Muller W.E.
        • Blume H.H.
        Pharmaceutical quality of different Ginkgo biloba brands.
        J Pharm Pharmacol. 2002; 54: 661-669
        • Monmaney T.
        Labels potency claims often inaccurate, analysis finds; spot check of products finds widely varying levels of key ingredients. But some firms object to testing method and defend their brands’ quality.
        Los Angeles Times. 1998; : A10
        • Wagner H.
        • Bladt S.
        Pharmaceutical quality of hypericum extracts.
        J Geriatr Psychiatry Neurol. 1994; 7: S65-S68
      1. Department of Health and Human Services. Food and Drug Administration. Current Good Manufacturing Practice in Manufacturing, Packing, or Holding Dietary Ingredients and Dietary Supplements. Federal Register. 2003;68:12157–12263. Available at:∼lrd/fr030313.html. Accessed March 3, 2004.

      2. Licensing of medicines. policy on herbal medicines. Herbal safety news. London: Medicines Control Agency 2002. Available at: Accessed March 20, 2004.

      3. Department of Health and Human Services. United States Food and Drug Administration. Dietary supplements home page. Available at: Accessed May 24, 2004.

        • Blumenthal M.
        Herbs continue in mainstream market.
        HerbalGram. 2003; 58: 71
      4. Clarke M, Oxman AD. MEDLINE highly sensitive search strategy for b.1) SilverPlatter-MEDLINE, b.2) OVID-MEDLINE, and b.3) PubMed Cochrane Reviewers’ Handbook 4.2.0 [updated March 2003]; Appendix 5b. Available at: Accessed February 2004.

        • Jadad A.
        • Andrew R.
        • Carroll D.
        • et al.
        Assessing the quality of reports of randomized clinical trials.
        Control Clin Trials. 1996; 17: 1-12
      5. National Institute of Health. Office of Dietary Supplements. Dietary supplements: background information. Available at: Accessed May 5, 2004.

      6. United States Pharmacopeia. USP announces launch of dietary supplement verification program. USP News. Rockville, MD. Available at: Accessed March 27, 2004.

      7. Accessed June 3, 2004.

      8. Consumer Reports investigates. Dangerous supplements still at large.
        Consumer Reports. 2004; (May): 12-17