Intervention Review

You have free access to this content

Echinacea for preventing and treating the common cold

  1. Marlies Karsch-Völk1,*,
  2. Bruce Barrett2,
  3. David Kiefer2,3,
  4. Rudolf Bauer4,
  5. Karin Ardjomand-Woelkart4,
  6. Klaus Linde1

Editorial Group: Cochrane Acute Respiratory Infections Group

Published Online: 20 FEB 2014

Assessed as up-to-date: 5 JUN 2013

DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD000530.pub3


How to Cite

Karsch-Völk M, Barrett B, Kiefer D, Bauer R, Ardjomand-Woelkart K, Linde K. Echinacea for preventing and treating the common cold. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2014, Issue 2. Art. No.: CD000530. DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD000530.pub3.

Author Information

  1. 1

    Klinikum Rechts der Isar, Institute of General Practice, München, Germany

  2. 2

    University of Wisconsin - Madison, Department of Family Medicine, Madison, Wisconsin, USA

  3. 3

    University of Arizona, Arizona Center for Integrative Medicine, Tucson, Arizona, USA

  4. 4

    Karl-Franzens-University, Institute of Pharmaceutical Sciences, Department of Pharmacognosy, Graz, Austria

*Marlies Karsch-Völk, Institute of General Practice, Klinikum Rechts der Isar, Orleansstrasse 47, München, 81667, Germany. karsch@tum.de.

Publication History

  1. Publication Status: Edited (no change to conclusions)
  2. Published Online: 20 FEB 2014

SEARCH

 

Background

  1. Top of page
  2. Background
  3. Objectives
  4. Methods
  5. Results
  6. Discussion
  7. Authors' conclusions
  8. Acknowledgements
  9. Data and analyses
  10. Appendices
  11. Feedback
  12. What's new
  13. History
  14. Contributions of authors
  15. Declarations of interest
  16. Sources of support
  17. Differences between protocol and review
  18. Index terms
 

Description of the condition

Common cold is the most frequent disease in humans. A large US-American survey showed that over 70% of the population annually was suffering from at least one viral respiratory tract infection. The authors concluded that the economic burden in the USA was almost USD 40 billion annually (Fendrick 2003). Viral agents causing common colds are mostly picornaviruses (rhinoviruses and enteroviruses), coronaviruses, adenoviruses, parainfluenza viruses and respiratory syncytial viruses (Denny 1995; Monto 1987). The incidence of the common cold has a peak in the winter months. There are several different hypotheses and explanations for this. One is that cooling of the nasal airway decreases the effectiveness of local respiratory defenses such as mucociliary clearance and leucocyte phagocytosis (Eccles 2002).

 

Description of the intervention

Extracts of the plant Echinacea (of the family Asteraceae) are widely used by consumers and practitioners in some European countries and in the US for preventing and treating upper respiratory tract infections (Barrett 2003). In the US mainstream market, Echinacea preparations are among the second top-selling herbal products (Blumenthal 2005).

Assessment of the effectiveness of Echinacea preparations is complicated by the limited comparability of the available preparations for the following reasons.

  1. Three different species are in medical use: Echinacea purpurea (E. purpurea),Echinacea pallida (E. pallida) and Echinacea angustifolia (E. angustifolia).
  2. Different parts of the plant are used (root, herb, flower or whole plant).
  3. Different methods of extraction are used.
  4. In some preparations other plant extracts or homeopathic components are added.

The evidence available from clinical trials on its effectiveness has been considered inconsistent in several reviews (Barrett 1999; Caruso 2005; Linde 2006; Melchart 1994; Melchart 1999). Two meta-analyses pooling trials using different heterogeneous Echinacea preparations for the treatment of induced rhinovirus infections (Schoop 2006b) or the common cold (Shah 2007) found more positive results for the effect of Echinacea. These results have to be interpreted with caution, as the great heterogeneity of tested Echinacea preparations makes comparison and pooling of data methodologically questionable.

 

How the intervention might work

The exact mechanisms of action for the immunomodulating effects of Echinacea preparations are unclear. Four classes of compounds are known to contribute to the immunomodulatory activity of Echinacea extracts: alkamides, glycoproteins, polysaccharides and caffeic acid derivatives (CADs). Phenolic compounds include caffeic, cichoric, caftaric and chlorogenic acid, as well as cynarin and echinacoside and are found in differing concentrations in the roots of both E. angustifolia and E. purpurea but also in the aerial parts of E. purpurea. Alkamides (alkylamides; fatty acid amides) are characteristic constituents of E. angustifolia roots, but are also found in roots and aerial parts of E. purpurea. Flavonoids, essential oils, polyacetylenes, ketones and pyrrolizidine alkaloids have also been isolated from Echinacea species. It is important to note that the pharmacologic effects associated with the constituents of Echinacea may result from independent or synergistic interactions with single or multiple constituents.

E. purpurea extracts rich in glycoproteins, polysaccharides and CADs have long been reported to demonstrate immunoactivity. Research in mice more than two decades ago demonstrated activation of macrophages and natural killer cells (Bauer 1989). Since then, numerous studies have supported these findings and have reported a variety of additional effects on adaptive and innate immune mechanisms (Chavez 2007; Gurbuz 2010; Hall 2007; Ramasahayam 2011; Ritchie 2011; Sadigh-Eteghad 2011; Yamada 2011; Zhai 2007).  

In contrast, early research on alkamide-rich extracts of E. angustifolia and E. purpurea suggested anti-inflammatory activity (Müller-Jakic 1994). Since then, however, studies have reported immunoactivity attributable to alkamides (Lalone 2009; Matthias 2008) and have suggested that influences on inflammatory pathways are complex, with both pro- and anti-inflammatory effects reported (Birt 2008; Qiang 2013; Yu 2013). Echinacea alkamides have been shown to be absorbed into the blood (Matthias 2005; Woelkart 2005b; Woelkart 2006; Woelkart 2008) and appear to exert a variety of effects through the endocannabinoid system (Chicca 2009; Woelkart 2005a; Woelkart 2007). Research on the effects of gene expression and signaling pathways is well underway (Altamirano-Dimas 2007; Gertsch 2004; Uluisik 2012).

In addition to research on immune and inflammatory pathways, indications of antiviral activity have been reported (Bodinet 2002; Ghaemi 2009; Sharma 2006). Finally, recent research suggests potential anti-anxiety properties (Haller 2013), potentially due to neuro-synaptic modulation in the hippocampus (Hajos 2012).

In summary, while it is clear that variousEchinacea extracts and constituents have demonstrated pharmacological activities in a variety of biological assays, there is as yet no evidence-based conceptual framework to explain howEchinacea might effectively prevent or treat acute respiratory infections.  

 

Why it is important to do this review

The common cold has a high prevalence and although it is a self limiting condition effective treatment options which lessen the severity and duration of symptoms would be of major importance. Echinacea products are widely used but their effectiveness is uncertain. We completed a first version of this review in 1998 (Melchart 1999), updated it in 2006 (Linde 2006) and again in 2008 (Linde 2008). The last literature search was conducted in 2007 and did not detect new publications on the issue. Now, six years later, several new trials have been published and evidence may have changed. Therefore, a major update of this review was necessary.

 

Objectives

  1. Top of page
  2. Background
  3. Objectives
  4. Methods
  5. Results
  6. Discussion
  7. Authors' conclusions
  8. Acknowledgements
  9. Data and analyses
  10. Appendices
  11. Feedback
  12. What's new
  13. History
  14. Contributions of authors
  15. Declarations of interest
  16. Sources of support
  17. Differences between protocol and review
  18. Index terms

To assess whether there is evidence that Echinacea preparations are effective and safe compared to placebo in the prevention and treatment of the common cold.

 

Methods

  1. Top of page
  2. Background
  3. Objectives
  4. Methods
  5. Results
  6. Discussion
  7. Authors' conclusions
  8. Acknowledgements
  9. Data and analyses
  10. Appendices
  11. Feedback
  12. What's new
  13. History
  14. Contributions of authors
  15. Declarations of interest
  16. Sources of support
  17. Differences between protocol and review
  18. Index terms
 

Criteria for considering studies for this review

 

Types of studies

Randomized controlled trials (RCTs).

 

Types of participants

We included studies if participants were:

  1. individuals with non-specific viral upper respiratory tract infections (URTIs) with a clinical diagnoses of common cold, influenza-like syndrome or viral URTI (it was not possible to apply a standard definition of common cold across all trials);
  2. volunteers without acute URTIs but treated for preventative purposes (prevention studies);
  3. volunteers without acute URTIs but challenged with rhinovirus treated for preventative or therapeutic purposes (or both).

We did not include studies of individuals suffering from other URTIs with a defined etiology (for example influenza) or a more specific symptomatology (for example acute sinusitis, angina tonsillaris).

 

Types of interventions

We included trials of oral Echinacea mono-preparations versus placebo. We excluded trials on combinations of Echinacea and other herbs and trials comparing Echinacea with no treatment or another treatment than placebo.

 

Types of outcome measures

Selected trials had to include clinical outcome measures related to occurrence (prevention studies) and severity or duration of infections (prevention and treatment studies). We excluded trials focusing solely on physiological parameters (such as phagocytosis activity). We did not include or exclude studies based on their primary outcome measure if at least one clinically relevant outcome measure listed above was reported.

 

Primary outcomes

  • The primary efficacy outcome measure for prevention trials was the number of participants experiencing at least one cold episode.
  • The primary efficacy outcome measure for treatment trials was duration in days.
  • The primary outcome for safety and acceptability for both prevention and treatment trials was the number of participants dropping out due to side effects or adverse events.

 

Secondary outcomes

  • Secondary efficacy outcome measures for prevention trials were the number of participants experiencing more than one cold episode; cold duration in days; severity scores.
  • Secondary efficacy outcome measures for treatment trials were total severity and duration measures (e.g. area under the curve); severity of symptoms at days two to four and at days 5 to 10; in trials with very early onset of treatment also the number of participants who developed the 'full picture of a cold'.
  • Secondary safety and acceptability outcome measures for both prevention and treatment trials were the total number of drop-outs and the number of participants reporting side effects or adverse events.

 

Search methods for identification of studies

 

Electronic searches

For this 2013 update we searched for new studies published since the last publication of our review and also searched for older trials. This was done as search methods have evolved over time and the inclusion criteria of our reviews have changed considerably.

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) 2013, Issue 5, part of The Cochrane Library, www.thecochranelibrary.com (accessed 5 June 2013) which contains the Acute Respiratory Infections Group's Specialized Register, MEDLINE (1946 to May week 4, 2013), EMBASE (1991 to June 2013), CINAHL (1981 to June 2013), AMED (1985 to February 2012), LILACS (1981 to June 2013) and Web of Science (1955 to June 2013).

We used the following search strategy to search CENTRAL and MEDLINE. We combined the MEDLINE search strategy with the Cochrane Highly Sensitive Search Strategy for identifying randomized trials in MEDLINE: sensitivity-maximizing version (2008 revision); Ovid format (Lefebvre 2011).

 
MEDLINE (Ovid)

1 Echinacea/
2 echinac*.tw.
3 coneflower*.tw.
4 ("E. purpurea" or "E. angustifolia" or "E. pallida").tw.
5 1 or 2 or 3 or 4

We adapted the search strategy to search EMBASE (Appendix 1), CINAHL (Appendix 2), AMED (Appendix 3), LILACS (Appendix 4) and Web of Science (Appendix 5). Searches for the first review (published in 1999) and the 2007 update are described in Appendix 6.

 

Searching other resources

We searched WHO ICTRP and clinicaltrials.gov (latest search 8 October 2012), the Centre for Complementary Medicine Research (1988 to September 2007) and CAMBASE (latest search 5 June 2013). We screened bibliographies of identified trials and review articles for further potentially relevant publications. We contacted experts in the field and asked about further published and unpublished studies.

 

Data collection and analysis

 

Selection of studies

One review author (MKV) screened the titles and abstracts, where available, of all identified references and eliminated non-human studies and trials without a control group. We obtained and checked further copies of all other references for eligibility. At least two review authors independently checked all potentially relevant publications or reports identified by the screening process for fulfillment of the selection criteria. We resolved disagreements by discussion. We assessed eligibility of trials in which one of the review authors was involved by review authors not involved in the trial.

 

Data extraction and management

At least two authors independently extracted descriptive information on patients, interventions, outcomes, results, drop-outs and side effects using a standard data extraction form. Details on extraction of outcomes used for analyses are described below. Trials in which review authors were involved were extracted and assessed by review authors not involved in the trial. We contacted trial authors or manufacturers and sponsors and asked them to provide lacking or additional data if the information in the available publications or reports was incomplete. A pharmacist with specific expertise on Echinacea (KAW) extracted information on the Echinacea preparations.

 

Assessment of risk of bias in included studies

At least two authors independently assessed the methodological quality of the included trials using the Cochrane 'Risk of bias' tool (Higgins 2011b). We assessed the generation of the random sequence, allocation concealment, blinding, incomplete outcome data and selective reporting. For an overall assessment we considered as low risk of bias only trials in which at least four of the five items were rated as low risk and none high risk. Any trial with one or more items rated as high risk was considered high risk in the overall assessment. The remaining trials were considered as unclear risk.

 

Measures of treatment effect

For dichotomous efficacy outcomes we calculated risk ratios (RR) and for safety/adverse event outcomes we calculated odds ratios (OR). For continuous efficacy outcomes we calculated mean differences (MD) if the same scale of measure was used (e.g. number of days) and standardized MD if measurement tools or scales varied. For all effect estimates we calculated 95% confidence intervals (CI).

 

Unit of analysis issues

In all trials individual patients were randomized. However, in one trial (Taylor 2003) investigating early self treatment more than one cold could be treated by participants (on average participants treated about 1.5 cold episodes) and the results for duration and severity presented in the publication were based on the number of cold episodes. For effect size calculation we used the number of cold episodes, because using the number of patients would only lead to a small change of the weight of this trial.

 

Dealing with missing data

In case of missing outcome data we tried to obtain additional information from study authors. If, in case of continuous outcomes, means were presented but standard deviations were missing we calculated standard deviations from standard errors, P values or confidence intervals as described in the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions Section 7.7.3 (Higgins 2011a). In case of missing dichotomous data we assumed that no event occurred.

 

Data synthesis

We expected a priori that meaningful quantitative meta-analyses of the studies would not be possible for the following reasons: 1) a variety of Echinacea preparations are used in trials (phytochemical comparability is unclear); 2) the approach of studies differs (some investigate prevention, some self treatment, some treatment, some treatment and/or prevention of experimentally induced colds); 3) outcome measures differ in the trials; and 4) the presentation of results in available reports often includes insufficient detail to allow effect size estimation. However, we aimed to calculate effect size estimates for relevant outcome measures in single trials whenever possible. If an outcome was probably measured but data for effect size calculation were not reported we documented this.

For our main analysis we had predefined criteria to consider pooling (fixed-effect model) of data from different trials: 1) treatment given for the same purpose (prevention or treatment); 2) use of the same or a very similar (regarding plant species, part and extraction mode) preparation and in similar dosage; and 3) at least two trials that met the criteria 1 and 2. Because of these criteria we ended up with multiple subgroups and most subgroups consisted of only one trial (with a maximum of two trials when criteria were met for pooling) we decided to run additional exploratory random-effects meta-analyses including all available trials regardless of the type of Echinacea product tested. For these meta-analyses studies with more than one Echinacea group were entered only once (pooling data from the Echinacea groups) to avoid duplicate use of placebo data. The meta-analyses serve to provide a crude overview of the overall direction and magnitude of the available study results and to investigate consistency and heterogeneity of the findings. We considered pooled effect sizes as clinically interpretable – at least with caution – when a) at least two-thirds of trials measuring an outcome actually could be included in the meta-analysis; b) at least five trials could be pooled; c) the I² statistic was ≤ 40%; and d) the P value of the Chi² test for heterogeneity was ≥ 0.25. All other pooled effect sizes were not considered clinically interpretable and only used to check whether results differed between studies.

Duration of colds was analyzed and reported in highly variable manner in the primary studies. While only two presented MD with some measure of variability (the measure we would have preferred for meta-analysis), some provided median duration and P values from log rank text, Cox regression or a Wilcoxon rank sum test. According to our protocol we included only the two trials reporting mean duration. To provide at least a crude summary of study findings in a post hoc secondary analysis we used an overall estimate of effect for each study rather than summary data for each intervention group for an inverse variance analysis. For this exploratory analysis we interpreted medians as means for calculating the MD and calculated standard errors as if P values were derived from a t-test. We did not pool findings from individual studies due these liberal assumptions and the heterogeneity of the study findings but included the resulting forest plot only for giving a graphical impression of the overall evidence.

In general we used the number of patients randomized when calculating effect estimates for dichotomous outcome and the number of patients analyzed for continuous measures. However, for some study approaches this was considered inappropriate. For example, in five trials of self treatment, participants were randomized to receive an Echinacea product or placebo medication to take at home but told to take their medication only in case a cold occurred. In these cases we used the number of patients in whom a cold actually occurred for analyses.

In the case of pooling we examined heterogeneity between trials by calculating a Chi² test, the I² statistic and the Tau² statistic. An I² statistic value of 0% to 40% was not considered to be important heterogeneity; 40% to 60% was considered moderate heterogeneity; 60% to 90% was considered substantial and an I2 statistic value greater than 90% indicated considerable heterogeneity (Higgins 2003). We generated funnel plots for meta-analyses including at least four studies. We carried out all calculations in RevMan 2012, version 5.2.

 

Results

  1. Top of page
  2. Background
  3. Objectives
  4. Methods
  5. Results
  6. Discussion
  7. Authors' conclusions
  8. Acknowledgements
  9. Data and analyses
  10. Appendices
  11. Feedback
  12. What's new
  13. History
  14. Contributions of authors
  15. Declarations of interest
  16. Sources of support
  17. Differences between protocol and review
  18. Index terms
 

Description of studies

 

Results of the search

The database searches identified a total of 556 hits (Figure 1). Three additional records were identified through other sources. We identified a total of 82 full-text articles describing trials which tested preparations of Echinacea in humans (alone or in combination with other plant extracts).

 FigureFigure 1. study flow diagram.

 

Included studies

Twenty-four studies (in 29 publications) met the inclusion criteria (Characteristics of included studies table). Of these, 15 had been included in the previous version of the review (Barrett 2002; Brinkeborn 1999; Bräunig 1992; Dorn 1997; Galea 1996; Goel 2004; Goel 2005; Grimm 1999; Hoheisel 1997; Kim 2002a; Lindenmuth 2000; Melchart 1998; Schulten 2001; Taylor 2003; Yale 2004), two of the now included studies on induced colds had initially been excluded in the previous version of the review (Sperber 2004; Turner 2000) and seven studies have been newly included (Barrett 2010; Hall 2007; Jawad 2012; O'Neill 2008; Tiralongo 2012; Turner 2005; Zhang 2003). One study (Taylor 2003) was in children, the other 23 in adults. Three trials (Brinkeborn 1999; Bräunig 1992; Melchart 1998; Turner 2005) had more than one experimental group receiving an Echinacea product (different dosage in one and different extracts in three) so there were a total of 33 comparisons of an Echinacea preparation with placebo. One study had both a placebo and a no treatment control group (Kim 2002a) and one study had a no treatment and an unblinded Echinacea group in addition to the blinded Echinacea and placebo groups (Barrett 2010).

Twelve trials originated from the USA, five from Germany, three from Canada, two from Sweden, one from the United Kingdom and one from Australia. Two trials from the USA and one from Canada were only available as unpublished manuscripts (Galea 1996; Kim 2002a; Zhang 2003).

 

Excluded studies

Forty-nine studies (in 53 publications) did not meet the inclusion criteria (Characteristics of excluded studies table; Figure 1). In 19 studies Echinacea in combination with other remedies was used. Eleven studies examined other conditions than common cold. Six studies examined other conditions than common cold using Echinacea in combination with other remedies. Ten studies were not randomized controlled trials, five of which also examined other conditions than common cold. Four studies only examined laboratory measurement results, without clinical outcomes and three of them examined other conditions than common cold.

Among the 49 excluded studies there was one which was included in the previous version of this review (Spasov 2004). It was an unblinded study without placebo control.

 

Study approaches

As described in the methods section, we separated prevention trials (treatment of healthy volunteers without cold symptoms to avoid occurrence of colds or reduce severity and duration of occurring cold) and treatment trials (treatment of individuals with colds or of early cold symptoms).

Ten studies were prevention trials (with a total of 13 Echinacea groups). In four of these trials 431 healthy volunteers (Hall 2007) or persons being challenged by inoculation with rhinovirus (Sperber 2004; Turner 2000; Turner 2005) were treated over a shorter period (two to four weeks). Six trials including 1391 participants (Grimm 1999; Jawad 2012; Melchart 1998; O'Neill 2008; Tiralongo 2012; Zhang 2003) treated healthy volunteers over a longer period (6 to 16 weeks) for preventative purposes.

Fifteen studies (with 20 comparisons) were categorized as treatment trials, but among these studies two different approaches were used: five placebo-controlled trials with a total of seven Echinacea groups (Brinkeborn 1999; Galea 1996; Goel 2004; Goel 2005; Taylor 2003) investigated self treatment. Healthy volunteers were randomized and instructed to start treatment only if they caught a cold. These trials randomized a total of 1910 participants (range 150 to 559). However, 846 did not start treatment as they did not catch a cold during the study period; therefore only 1064 (62 to 436) actually started treatment. In 10 trials with a total of 13 Echinacea groups (Barrett 2002; Barrett 2010; Bräunig 1992; Dorn 1997; Hoheisel 1997; Kim 2002a; Lindenmuth 2000; Schulten 2001; Turner 2005; Yale 2004) individuals with cold symptoms were randomized and treated. These 10 trials included a total of 1538 participants (range 57 to 359 in each). Typically, they tried to start treatment as early as possible. Three trials (Hoheisel 1997; Schulten 2001; Turner 2005) explicitly not only investigated duration and severity of symptoms but also tried to prevent the development of a 'full cold' by treatment of first symptoms. Two of these trials were performed in industrial plants where employees could access treatment very fast (Hoheisel 1997; Schulten 2001). Development of a "full cold" was also tested by one trial examining experimental rhinovirus colds (Turner 2005).

 

Echinacea preparations tested

In the 33 experimental groups of the 24 included trials, widely different Echinacea preparations were used ( Table 1). A large proportion of the preparations used in the trials were pressed juices (stabilized with alcohol), alcohol tinctures or tablets made from dried extracts. In six trials preparations from the pressed juice of the aerial parts of E. purpurea were used (Grimm 1999; Hoheisel 1997; Schulten 2001; Sperber 2004 Taylor 2003; Yale 2004). In five of these six trials (Grimm 1999; Hoheisel 1997; Schulten 2001; Sperber 2004; Taylor 2003) the same product was used. Preparations based on E. purpurea root alone were used in two trials, with three experimental groups (Bräunig 1992; Zhang 2003). An identical product based on a mixture of E. purpurea root (5%) and herb (95%) was used in two trials with three experimental groups (Brinkeborn 1999; Jawad 2012). One of these trials (Brinkeborn 1999) tested two different concentrations of the same product. Two trials by the same study group (Goel 2004; Goel 2005) investigated the effectiveness of an extract of 'various' parts of E. purpurea. The particular aspect of this preparation was that it was standardized for its content of three bioactive components (alkamides, cichoric acid and polysaccharides).

The 14 remaining Echinacea preparations were only used in one trial each: tinctures or extracts prepared from E. pallida root (Dorn 1997), E. angustifolia root (Melchart 1998) or E. angustifolia, without information on the plant parts used (Galea 1996); a dried plant preparation based on 50% E. angustifolia root, 25% E. purpurea root and 25% E. purpurea herb (Barrett 2002); a preparation based on E. purpurea root and E. angustofolia root, without information on extraction details (Barrett 2010); a tincture from 80% E. purpurea herb and 20% E. angustifolia root (Kim 2002a); a preparation based on an extract of E. purpurea root and E. angustofolia root (extraction details not reported) (Tiralongo 2012); a 4% phenolic extract of E. purpurea and E. angustofolia (Turner 2000); three preparations based on E. angustofolia root using three different extraction methods (20% alcohol; 60% alcohol and CO2) (Turner 2005); two kinds of E. purpurea capsules (parts and extraction details not reported (Hall 2007; O'Neill 2008); and a tea preparation based on dry extracts from the aerial parts of E. purpurea and E. angustifolia (Lindenmuth 2000).

 

Outcome measurement

All 10 prevention trials investigated the occurrence of cold. Other outcomes, like the number of people with more than one cold episode, duration and severity scores were only measured in some of the prevention trials. Among the self treatment and treatment trials, methods for outcome measurements and the results actually presented varied greatly (there were differences regarding instruments used, timing of measurements, type of analysis and descriptive statistics).

 

Risk of bias in included studies

'Risk of bias' judgements are given in the Characteristics of included studies table and in Figure 2 and Figure 3. We rated five trials (Barrett 2002; Barrett 2010; Brinkeborn 1999; Goel 2004; Taylor 2003) as having a low risk of bias in all five categories of the Cochrane 'Risk of bias' tool (Higgins 2011b). We rated five more trials as low risk of bias, having an unclear risk of bias in only one category. We rated eight trials as having a high risk of bias (Bräunig 1992; Dorn 1997; Galea 1996; Hoheisel 1997; Jawad 2012; Lindenmuth 2000; O'Neill 2008; Zhang 2003) and six as having an unclear risk of bias.

 FigureFigure 2. 'Risk of bias' graph: review authors' judgements about each risk of bias item presented as percentages across all included studies.
 FigureFigure 3. 'Risk of bias' summary: review authors' judgements about each risk of bias item for each included study.

 

Allocation

Random sequence generation was performed appropriately in at least 17 studies. Additional information by authors and sponsors was taken into account. In one study (Lindenmuth 2000), allocation to groups appeared to follow an alternating sequence rather than true randomization. However, the allocation process was handled by an independent and blinded secretary after inclusion of participants in the trial. This study was already included in the previous version of the review. An adequate method of concealment was used in at least 14 studies (taking into account additional information received from authors and sponsors). In 10 studies sufficiently detailed information on allocation concealment was not reported.

 

Blinding

All 24 trials were described as blinded. In 16 trials we considered the risk of performance and detection bias as low. One older trial was not adequately blinded (Bräunig 1992). In this three-armed trial, one Echinacea group received 180 drops daily while the other Echinacea group and the placebo group received 90 drops. One trial was performed among employees of the manufacturer (Schulten 2001) who may have recognized the taste of their Echinacea product; the success of blinding was not tested. In one trial capsules filled with vegetable oil were used as placebo and may have been distinguishable from Echinacea capsules by taste (Galea 1996). In two more trials (Hoheisel 1997; Lindenmuth 2000) Echinacea preparation and placebo could possibly have been distinguishable by taste. Thirteen trials reported a test for the success of blinding. In 11 trials blinding seemed to have been successful while in two there was evidence of some unblinding (Melchart 1998) or major unblinding (Zhang 2003).

 

Incomplete outcome data

The risk of attrition bias was considered low in 14 trials, having reported less than 20% attrition and performed an intention-to-treat analysis or reported generally less than 5% attrition. The risk of attrition bias was unclear in three and high in seven trials.

 

Selective reporting

We assessed 17 trials as having a low risk of reporting bias. In four trials important relevant outcomes are not reported/examined (Bräunig 1992; Hall 2007; Hoheisel 1997; Jawad 2012). In two trials the reports are not systematically biased, but outcomes have been reported insufficiently to allow effect size calculation (Galea 1996; Schulten 2001).

 

Effects of interventions

 

Primary outcomes for prevention trials and for treatment or self treatment trials

 

Primary efficacy outcome measure for prevention trials: number of participants experiencing at least one cold episode

Nine of the 10 prevention trials reported the number of patients experiencing at least one cold. None of the 12 comparisons of Echinacea preparations and placebo in these nine trials (Grimm 1999; Hall 2007; Melchart 1998; O'Neill 2008; Sperber 2004; Tiralongo 2012; Turner 2000; Turner 2005; Zhang 2003) demonstrated statistically significant results in comparison to placebo (Figure 4;  Analysis 1.1).

 FigureFigure 4. Forest plot of comparison: 1 Echinacea versus placebo to prevent common cold, outcome: 1.1 Number of participants with at least 1 cold episode.

Only two trials investigated the same Echinacea product; the pooled risk ratio (RR) also did not show significant effects over placebo (RR 0.82, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.67 to 1.02; P = 0.07). However, in our exploratory meta-analysis pooling all trials (1167 patients totally), regardless of the product used, prophylactic treatment with Echinacea products was associated with a reduced risk of experiencing a cold (RR 0.83, 95% CI 0.75 to 0.92; P < 0.001). Study findings were highly consistent across studies with an I² statistic of 0%, a Tau² of 0.00 and a P value of 0.98 in the Chi² test for heterogeneity. The funnel plot showed some asymmetry (Eggers test p = 0.03) but point estimates in the single trials were similar and including only the four most precise trials in meta-analysis reduced the pooled estimate only marginally (RR 0.85, 95% CI 0.75 to 0.96). We could not include the largest prevention study (Jawad 2012) in the quantitative analyses as it did not report the number of patients with at least one cold but only the total number of cold episodes. There were 149 cold episodes in the Echinacea group versus 188 in the placebo group; this finding seems very compatible with the reduced RR suggested by our meta-analysis.

The observed risk ratio of 0.83 in our meta-analysis corresponds to an absolute risk reduction of 10% (95% CI 5% to 16%) and a number needed to treat of 10 (95% CI 6 to 20). As more participants in the control groups experienced a cold the absolute risk reduction in the four most precise trials was 11% (94% CI 4% to 19%) and the number needed to treat 9 (95% CI 5 to 25) in spite of the slightly larger risk ratio of 0.85.

 

Primary efficacy outcome measure for treatment or self treatment trials: duration in days

Only one trial of a mixture of 50% E. angustifolia root, 25% E. purpurea root and 25% E. purpurea herb (Barrett 2002) and one trial of a mixture of E. purpurea root and E. angustifolia root (Barrett 2010) reported the mean duration of colds (Figure 5;  Analysis 2.1). Neither trial found a significant difference compared to placebo. A total of six trials could be included in our post hoc secondary inverse variance analysis also using other data on duration ( Analysis 2.2). Study findings were heterogeneous (I² statistic = 77%, Tau² = 0.88, P = 0.0002 in Chi² test) with two trials (Lindenmuth 2000; Schulten 2001) finding a significantly shorter duration in the Echinacea group.  

 FigureFigure 5. Forest plot of comparison: 2 Echinacea versus placebo to treat patients with common cold, outcome: 2.1 Duration: mean difference.

 

Primary safety and acceptability outcome for prevention trials: number of participants dropping out due to side effects or adverse events

Our main outcome measure for the safety and acceptability analysis, the number of patients dropping out due to adverse effects, was reported in eight comparisons in seven studies (Grimm 1999; Jawad 2012; Melchart 1998; O'Neill 2008; Sperber 2004; Tiralongo 2012; Turner 2000; see Figure 6;  Analysis 1.5). There were no significant differences in the single trials but the confidence intervals are wide as the number of patients dropping out was generally low. If study findings were pooled regardless of the Echinacea product used (heterogeneity indicators I² statistic = 0%; Tau² = 0.00; P = 0.87 in Chi² test) 2.4% in Echinacea groups dropped out from the studies due to side effects compared to 0.8% from the placebo groups (odds ratio (OR) 2.17, 95% CI 0.85 to 5.53; P = 0.10).

 FigureFigure 6. Forest plot of comparison: 1 Echinacea versus placebo to prevent common cold, outcome: 1.5 Number of patients dropping out due to adverse effects.

 

Primary safety and acceptability outcome for treatment or self treatment trials: number of participants dropping out due to side effects or adverse events

For 11 trials (14 comparisons) the number of patients dropping out due to side or adverse effects could be extracted. Only three of 1088 patients who received an Echinacea product and none of the 930 patients who received placebo dropped out for these reasons ( Analysis 2.7).

 

Secondary outcomes for prevention trials and for treatment or self treatment trials

 

Secondary efficacy outcome measures for prevention trials: number of participants experiencing more than one cold episode; cold duration in days; severity scores

Three trials (with four comparisons) reported the number of patients with more than one cold episode ( Analysis 1.2). None of the trials found significant differences but confidence intervals were very wide. Four trials (with five comparisons) reported the duration of cold episode ( Analysis 1.3). Only one small trial (Hall 2007) found a very large (5.2 days on average) statistically significant effect over placebo. Point estimates in the other comparisons vary between 1.2 days shorter to 0.6 days longer duration in the Echinacea groups. Five trials (with seven comparisons) presented sufficient data for calculations on effect sizes for severity of cold episodes ( Analysis 1.4). Again, none of the single trials found a significant effect over placebo. However, as study findings were similar across trials (I² statistic = 0% and Tau² = 0.00 and P = 0.86 in Chi² test) we report the pooled standardized mean difference (SMD) for this outcome which is -0.24 (95% CI -0.07 to -0.40; P = 0.005), indicating a small effect over placebo.

 

Secondary efficacy outcome measures for treatment or self treatment trials: total severity and duration measures; severity of symptoms at days two to four and at days 5 to 10; in trials with very early onset of treatment also the number of participants who developed the 'full picture of a cold'

In nine trials (nine comparisons) measures integrating both severity and duration were presented in sufficient detail, or were provided by the authors, to calculate effect sizes ( Analysis 2.2). The two trials on E. purpurea herb pressed juice preparations also reporting duration again reported conflicting results (Schulten 2001; Taylor 2003). The pooled SMD was not significant (SMD -0.26, 95% CI -0.75 to 0.23; P = 0.30; I² statistic = 76%). This applies also to two trials testing a standardized extract of E. purpurea (SMD -0.18, 95% CI -0.57 to 0.21; P = 0.20; I² = 40%). Trials of other extracts did not find any significant differences. While heterogeneity seems limited (I² statistic = 17%; Tau² 0.00; P = 0.29 in Chi² test) our SMD from meta-analysis of all available studies has to be interpreted with great caution (SMD -0.09, 95% CI -0.20 to 0.02; P = 0.10). Data on severity scores after two to four days ( Analysis 2.4) and five to 10 days of treatment ( Analysis 2.5) were reported in seven trials (eight comparisons) and eight trials (11 comparisons), respectively. Significant differences were found in two comparisons after two to four days and four comparisons after five to 10 days. As study findings were heterogeneous (I² statistic = 76% and 90%, respectively) we do not report a pooled effect estimate of all pooled data. For the standardized E. purpurea extract tested in two trials pooled SMDs were non-significant (after two to four days: SMD -0.20, 95% CI -0.88 to 0.48; P = 0.56 and after five to 10 days SMD -0.31, 95% CI -0.75 to -1.00; P = 0.18). Only three trials reported the number of patients developing a "full" cold after the early treatment of prodromes (self treatment) ( Analysis 2.6). For the two studies using the same Echinacea product (E. purpurea herb pressed juice) the pooled RR was non-significant (RR 0.79, 95% CI 0.54 to 1.14; P = 0.21).

 

Secondary safety and acceptability outcomes for prevention trials: total number of drop-outs and the number of participants reporting side effects or adverse events

For 12 comparisons in nine trials the number of patients dropping out ( Analysis 1.6) has been reported. Two studies reported that significantly more patients were dropping out in the Echinacea group than in the placebo group (Jawad 2012 and the comparison using E. angustofolia root extracted with CO2 in Turner 2005). The other trials found no significant differences in the number of drop-outs. As study results seem broadly consistent (I² statistic = 8%, Tau² = 0.02; P = 0.37 in Chi² test) we also report pooled results. The percentage of participants in the Echinacea groups terminating studies early was 12.7% compared to 9.0% in the placebo groups (OR 1.37, 95% CI 0.98 to 1.91; P = 0.06). For nine comparisons in eight trials the number of persons reporting adverse effects ( Analysis 1.7) has been reported. Results were non-significant in all trials except for one trial which found significantly fewer persons reporting adverse effects in the placebo group (Zhang 2003). In most of the trials there was a trend towards fewer adverse effects in the placebo groups. As some heterogeneity cannot be ruled out (I² statistic = 25%, Tau² = 0.10; P = 0.23 in Chi² test) our pooled findings are hard to interpret. 11.8% versus 8.6% of patients reported side or adverse effects (RR 1.49, 95% CI 0.95 to 2.35; P = 0.09).

 

Secondary safety and acceptability outcomes for treatment or self treatment trials: total number of drop-outs and the number of participants reporting side effects or adverse events

Numbers of participants dropping out were similar in Echinacea and placebo groups in the trials presenting these data ( Analysis 2.8 to  Analysis 2.9), except for E. angustofolia root extracted with 60% ethanol which led to more drop-outs in the Echinacea group (Turner 2005). The number of patients reporting adverse effects did not differ significantly between treatment and control groups in the single trials. Heterogeneity was low (I² statistic = 0%, Tau² = 0.00, P = 0.84 Chi² test). Meta-analysis showed a significant difference in the number of patients reporting side effects in the placebo groups (32.6%) and in the treatment groups (34.1%) (OR 1.28, 95% CI 1.02 to 1.60, P = 0.03). One trial in children using a preparation made from pressed juice of E. purpurea herb found an increased frequency of rash in the experimental group (Taylor 2003).

 

Discussion

  1. Top of page
  2. Background
  3. Objectives
  4. Methods
  5. Results
  6. Discussion
  7. Authors' conclusions
  8. Acknowledgements
  9. Data and analyses
  10. Appendices
  11. Feedback
  12. What's new
  13. History
  14. Contributions of authors
  15. Declarations of interest
  16. Sources of support
  17. Differences between protocol and review
  18. Index terms
 

Summary of main results

Our review shows that a variety of products prepared from different Echinacea species, different plant parts and in different forms have been compared to placebo in randomized trials. These preparations contain quite different amounts of bioactive components and hence are not biochemically comparable. Furthermore, trial approaches and methods for cold assessment were highly variable. Taken together, results from prevention trials suggest that a number of Echinacea products slightly reduce the risk of getting a cold in healthy individuals. If this conclusion is true, the lack of significance in individual trials could be due to a lack of statistical power (too few patients included in single studies). Although it seems possible that some Echinacea products also have effects over placebo for treating colds, the overall evidence for clinically relevant treatment effects over placebo is weak.

 

Overall completeness and applicability of evidence

For our review we could identify and include three unpublished trials which did not find significant effects over placebo (Galea 1996; Kim 2002a; Zhang 2003). We are also aware of at least one further unpublished, negative trial from the USA. During the search for an earlier review on Echinacea (Melchart 1994) one of the authors was informed by an expert in the field through personal communication that there were several negative trials from Germany (however, possibly partly of combinations). It seems possible that there are additional unpublished trials, though we think that it is unlikely that the conclusions of our review would change substantially; the evidence regarding treatment effects is weak and cannot justify recommendations to take Echinacea or a specific product. All single prevention trials included in our review yielded non-significant results. Particularly in smaller trials, P values were far from statistically significant.

 

Quality of the evidence

The great heterogeneity of preparations tested makes conclusions difficult. Several of the newer trials tested products which were standardized on the content of a bioactive ingredient. However, the available research indicates that the clinical effects of (some) Echinacea preparations are likely to be due to several components which may have synergistic effects. Two of the tested products were standardized for known bioactive components, namely alkamides, cichoric acid and polysaccharides (Goel 2004; Goel 2005; Tiralongo 2012). Components (or one component) of the study medication have been analyzed and documented for several trials (Barrett 2002; Barrett 2010; Galea 1996; Jawad 2012; Melchart 1998; Turner 2000; Turner 2005; Yale 2004; Zhang 2003). Testing preparations that have been standardized to specific components seems like a desirable way to move forward. The quality of the included trials was heterogeneous as we considered 38% of the trials to have a high risk of bias while we considered 42% of the trials to have a low risk of bias.

In 2005, a further systematic review on the effectiveness of Echinacea for the treatment (not prevention) of colds was published (Caruso 2005). The authors concluded that the possible therapeutic effectiveness of Echinacea had not been established. A major criticism was that most studies (apart from two negative trials) lacked a proof of blinding. While we agree that successful blinding is crucial for the validity of a trial, we find it problematic to overemphasize this criterion when assessing the available evidence. First, the vast majority (93%) of placebo-controlled RCTs provide no evidence of blinding success and, of those that do, the majority report less than satisfactory results (Fergusson 2004). Second, participant guesses at the end of a trial are also influenced by the perceived outcome and are not necessarily evidence of bias. Nevertheless, we agree with the authors of this review that the available evidence is far from convincing and that a lack of blinding can be a relevant problem in trials of Echinacea products.

 

Potential biases in the review process

Study selection and data extraction were performed by at least two review authors independently. Studies in which one of the authors were involved were handled by another review author. We checked study findings entered for effect size calculation against the original publications. However, it was a major challenge for the authors of this review to summarize the results of the included studies in a manner that is both concise and reflects the heterogeneity adequately. In our main analysis we did not pool studies unless they clearly investigated comparable Echinacea products. Yet, deviating from our protocol, we included some pooled estimates from meta-analysis across different Echinacea preparations in the text. We believe that this decision is justified as a) it allows us to check whether study findings are consistent across studies and products and b) it provides a crude idea of the possible size of potential effects. However, we urge that these results have to be interpreted with caution and should not be interpreted as 'average' effects of Echinacea products.

 

Agreements and disagreements with other studies or reviews

A meta-analysis (Schoop 2006b) of the three trials on induced rhinovirus infections included in our review (Sperber 2004; Turner 2000; Turner 2005) found that the likelihood of participants experiencing a clinical cold was significantly lower in the Echinacea groups. The results were pooled, although different Echinacea preparations were examined in the trials. These findings could indicate that the trials were too small to detect a small effect of the tested preparations. This conclusion is consistent with our results.

In 2007 another meta-analysis of RCTs investigating the effectiveness of Echinacea products for preventing and treating common colds was published (Shah 2007). This review drew more favorable conclusions, especially on the effect of Echinacea on the cold duration, than we do. Shah 2007 used different inclusion criteria and also included trials investigating combinations of Echinacea. These authors heavily relied on meta-analysis, pooling findings from studies investigating very different Echinacea preparations and from treatment and prevention trials in one analysis. If all these trials are interpreted as investigating the same treatment for the same purpose, then the evidence can be considered as more positive and the conclusions reasonable. For our main analysis we refrained from pooling studies testing different Echinacea preparations.

Other complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) interventions for prevention and treatment have been investigated in systematic reviews. The evidence that vitamin C supplementation or probiotics used for prevention of the common cold, and zinc used for treatment of the common cold, are effective (Hao 2011; Hemilä 2013; Singh 2013a) is stronger than the evidence for Echinacea. Evidence for the effects of other CAM interventions is similarly limited (Pelargonium sidoides, Timmer 2009) or even weaker (saline nasal irrigation, Kassel 2010; increased fluid intake Guppy 2011; heated humidified air, Singh 2013b; garlic, Lissiman 2012; and Chinese medical herbs, Zhang 2010).

 

Authors' conclusions

  1. Top of page
  2. Background
  3. Objectives
  4. Methods
  5. Results
  6. Discussion
  7. Authors' conclusions
  8. Acknowledgements
  9. Data and analyses
  10. Appendices
  11. Feedback
  12. What's new
  13. History
  14. Contributions of authors
  15. Declarations of interest
  16. Sources of support
  17. Differences between protocol and review
  18. Index terms

 

Implications for practice

The most important recommendation for consumers and clinicians is to be aware that the available Echinacea products differ greatly. The overwhelming majority of these products have not been tested in clinical trials. It has been shown that labeling of products marketed in health food stores can be incorrect (Gilroy 2003). Our exploratory meta-analyses suggest that at least some Echinacea preparations may reduce the relative risk of catching a cold by 10% to 20%. A risk reduction of 15% would mean that if 500 out of 1000 persons receiving a placebo would catch a cold this figure would be 425 of 1000 persons with an Echinacea product. This is clearly a small effect of unclear clinical relevance. Furthermore, we cannot say which Echinacea products have an effect of this size, or a greater or lesser effect. While there are some hints that both alcoholic extracts and pressed juices that are based primarily on the aerial parts of E. purpurea have beneficial effects on cold symptoms in adults, the evidence for clinically relevant treatment effects is weak. There are still many remaining doubts due to the fact that not all trials using such preparations show even a trend towards an effect.

As randomized controlled trials include limited numbers of participants and often exclude persons with relevant co-morbidity, a review of such trials can only contribute limited knowledge on safety issues. The number of patients dropping out or reporting adverse effects did not differ significantly between treatment and control groups in prevention and treatment trials. However, in prevention trials there was a trend towards a larger number of patients dropping out due to side effects or reporting side effects in the treatment groups.The most relevant potential adverse effects of Echinacea preparations are probably allergic reactions (Huntley 2005; Mullins 2002). One trial suggested an absolute 5% increase in rash in children (Taylor 2003). Parenteral application of Echinacea preparation should be discouraged, as there is no evidence of either safety or effectiveness.

 
Implications for research

In principle, further research is clearly desirable given the widespread use of Echinacea products. However, given the multiplicity and diversity of products on the market applying the knowledge gained from such studies will remain a challenge to persons without in-depth knowledge of herbal preparations. The use of chemically well-defined preparations is recommended to improve comparability of results from different studies. It would be desirable if experts in research on common colds could develop recommendations for a core set of outcome measures to be used and reported in randomized clinical trials. Trials investigating the prevention of colds need large sample sizes as the potential effects of Echinacea products are likely to be small.

 

Acknowledgements

  1. Top of page
  2. Background
  3. Objectives
  4. Methods
  5. Results
  6. Discussion
  7. Authors' conclusions
  8. Acknowledgements
  9. Data and analyses
  10. Appendices
  11. Feedback
  12. What's new
  13. History
  14. Contributions of authors
  15. Declarations of interest
  16. Sources of support
  17. Differences between protocol and review
  18. Index terms

We would like to thank Sarah Thorning (Trials Search Co-ordinator of the Cochrane ARI Group) for her help with the literature search and Liz Dooley (Managing Editor of the Cochrane ARI Group) for her patience when waiting for this update to be completed. Furthermore we would like to thank Dieter Melchart for his contribution to the previous versions of the review. The authors would also like to thank the following people for commenting on drafts of this review: Janet Wale, Ann Fonfa, Ajima Olaghere, Steven Yale, Zaina AlBalawi, Sree Nair, Mark Jones and Meenu Singh. We are indebted to the authors of primary studies who provided additional information, often to a considerable extent.

Bruce Barrett is supported by a K24 Mid-Career Investigator Award from the National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine at the U.S. National Institutes of Health.
David Kiefer is a post-doctoral research fellow, supported by a T32 National Research Service Award from the National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine at the U.S. National Institutes of Health.

 

Data and analyses

  1. Top of page
  2. Background
  3. Objectives
  4. Methods
  5. Results
  6. Discussion
  7. Authors' conclusions
  8. Acknowledgements
  9. Data and analyses
  10. Appendices
  11. Feedback
  12. What's new
  13. History
  14. Contributions of authors
  15. Declarations of interest
  16. Sources of support
  17. Differences between protocol and review
  18. Index terms
Download statistical data

 
Comparison 1. Echinacea versus placebo to prevent common cold

Outcome or subgroup titleNo. of studiesNo. of participantsStatistical methodEffect size

 1 Number of participants with at least 1 cold episode9Risk Ratio (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)Totals not selected

    1.1 E. purpurea herb
1Risk Ratio (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

    1.2 E. purpurea herb pressed juice
2Risk Ratio (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

    1.3 E. purpurea dried plant extract
1Risk Ratio (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

    1.4 E. purpurea root extract
1Risk Ratio (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

    1.5 E. purpurea root alcoholic extract
1Risk Ratio (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

    1.6 E. purpurea root and E. angustofolia root
1Risk Ratio (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

    1.7 4% phenolic extract of E. purpurea and E. angustofolia
1Risk Ratio (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

    1.8 E. angustifolia root alcoholic extract
1Risk Ratio (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

    1.9 E. angustofolia root extract with CO2
1Risk Ratio (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

    1.10 E. angustofolia root extract with 60% ethanol
1Risk Ratio (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

    1.11 E. angustofolia root extract with 20% ethanol
1Risk Ratio (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

 2 Number of participants with more than 1 cold3Risk Ratio (M-H, Fixed, 95% CI)Totals not selected

    2.1 E. purpurea herb pressed juice
1Risk Ratio (M-H, Fixed, 95% CI)0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

    2.2 E. purpurea alcoholic extract with 95% herb and 5% root
1Risk Ratio (M-H, Fixed, 95% CI)0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

    2.3 E. purpurea root alcoholic extract
1Risk Ratio (M-H, Fixed, 95% CI)0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

    2.4 E. angustifolia root alcoholic extract
1Risk Ratio (M-H, Fixed, 95% CI)0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

 3 Duration: mean difference4Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)Totals not selected

    3.1 E. purpurea herb
1Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

    3.2 E. purpurea dried plant extract
1Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

    3.3 E. purpurea root extract
1Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

    3.4 E. purpurea root alcoholic extract
1Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

    3.5 E. angustofolia root alcoholic extract
1Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

 4 Total severity score5Std. Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)Totals not selected

    4.1 E. purpurea herb pressed juice
1Std. Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

    4.2 E. purpurea root extract
1Std. Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

    4.3 E. purpurea root and E. angustofolia root
1Std. Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

    4.4 4% phenolic extract of E. purpurea and E. angustofolia
1Std. Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

    4.5 E. angustofolia root extract with CO2
1Std. Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

    4.6 E. angustofolia root extract with 60% ethanol
1Std. Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

    4.7 E. angustofolia root extract with 20% ethanol
1Std. Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

 5 Number of patients dropping out due to adverse effects7Odds Ratio (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)Totals not selected

    5.1 E. purpurea herb pressed juice
2Odds Ratio (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

    5.2 E. purpurea dried plant extract
1Odds Ratio (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

    5.3 E. purpurea alcoholic extract with 95% herb and 5% root
1Odds Ratio (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

    5.4 E. purpurea root alcoholic extract
1Odds Ratio (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

    5.5 E. purpurea root and E. angustofolia root
1Odds Ratio (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

    5.6 4% phenolic extract of E. purpurea and E. angustofolia
1Odds Ratio (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

    5.7 E. angustifolia root alcoholic extract
1Odds Ratio (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

 6 Number of patients dropping out9Odds Ratio (M-H, Fixed, 95% CI)Totals not selected

    6.1 E. purpurea herb pressed juice
2Odds Ratio (M-H, Fixed, 95% CI)0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

    6.2 E. purpurea dried plant extract
1Odds Ratio (M-H, Fixed, 95% CI)0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

    6.3 E. purpurea alcoholic extract with 95% herb and 5% root
1Odds Ratio (M-H, Fixed, 95% CI)0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

    6.4 E. purpurea root extract
1Odds Ratio (M-H, Fixed, 95% CI)0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

    6.5 E. purpurea root alcoholic extract
1Odds Ratio (M-H, Fixed, 95% CI)0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

    6.6 E. purpurea root and E. angustofolia root
1Odds Ratio (M-H, Fixed, 95% CI)0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

    6.7 4% phenolic extract of E. purpurea and E. angustofolia
1Odds Ratio (M-H, Fixed, 95% CI)0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

    6.8 E. angustifolia root alcoholic extract
1Odds Ratio (M-H, Fixed, 95% CI)0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

    6.9 E. angustofolia root extract with CO2
1Odds Ratio (M-H, Fixed, 95% CI)0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

    6.10 E. angustofolia root extract with 60% ethanol
1Odds Ratio (M-H, Fixed, 95% CI)0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

    6.11 E. angustofolia root extract with 20% ethanol
1Odds Ratio (M-H, Fixed, 95% CI)0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

 7 Number of patients reporting adverse effects8Odds Ratio (M-H, Fixed, 95% CI)Totals not selected

    7.1 E. purpurea herb pressed juice
2Odds Ratio (M-H, Fixed, 95% CI)0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

    7.2 E. purpurea dried plant extract
1Odds Ratio (M-H, Fixed, 95% CI)0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

    7.3 E. purpurea alcoholic extract with 95% herb and 5% root
1Odds Ratio (M-H, Fixed, 95% CI)0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

    7.4 E. purpurea root extract
1Odds Ratio (M-H, Fixed, 95% CI)0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

    7.5 E. purpurea root alcoholic extract
1Odds Ratio (M-H, Fixed, 95% CI)0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

    7.6 E. purpurea root and E. angustofolia root
1Odds Ratio (M-H, Fixed, 95% CI)0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

    7.7 4% phenolic extract of E. purpurea and E. angustofolia
1Odds Ratio (M-H, Fixed, 95% CI)0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

    7.8 E. angustifolia root alcoholic extract
1Odds Ratio (M-H, Fixed, 95% CI)0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

 
Comparison 2. Echinacea versus placebo to treat patients with common cold

Outcome or subgroup titleNo. of studiesNo. of participantsStatistical methodEffect size

 1 Duration: mean difference2Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)Totals not selected

    1.1 Mixture of E. angustifolia root (50%), E. purpurea root (25%) and E. purpurea herb (25%)
1Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

    1.2 E. purpurea root and E. angustofolia root
1Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

 2 Duration (inverse variance)6Mean Difference (Random, 95% CI)Totals not selected

    2.1 E. purpurea herb freeze-dried pressed juice
1Mean Difference (Random, 95% CI)0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

    2.2 E. purpurea herb pressed juice
2Mean Difference (Random, 95% CI)0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

    2.3 Tea E. purpurea and angustifolia
1Mean Difference (Random, 95% CI)0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

    2.4 Mixture of E. angustifolia root (50%), E. purpurea root (25%) and E. purpurea herb (25%)
1Mean Difference (Random, 95% CI)0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

    2.5 E. purpurea root and E. angustofolia root
1Mean Difference (Random, 95% CI)0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

 3 Total severity and duration measures (for example, area under the curve)9Std. Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)Totals not selected

    3.1 E. purpurea pressed juice
2Std. Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

    3.2 E. purpurea standardized
2Std. Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

    3.3 Mixture of 80% E. purpurea herb and 20% E. angustifolia roots
1Std. Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

    3.4 Mixture of E. angustifolia root (50%), E. purpurea root (25%) and E. purpurea herb (25%)
1Std. Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

    3.5 E. purpurea root and E. angustofolia root
1Std. Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

    3.6 E. angustifolia
1Std. Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

    3.7 E. angustofolia root extract with CO2
1Std. Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

    3.8 E. angustofolia root extract with 60% ethanol
1Std. Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

    3.9 E. angustofolia root extract with 20% ethanol
1Std. Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

 4 Sum score after 2 to 4 days7Std. Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)Totals not selected

    4.1 E. purpurea herb freeze-dried pressed juice
1Std. Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

    4.2 E. purpurea herb pressed juice
1Std. Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

    4.3 E. purpurea standardized
2Std. Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

    4.4 E. purpurea root 450 mg
1Std. Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

    4.5 E. purpurea root 900 mg
1Std. Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

    4.6 Mixture of E. angustifolia root (50%), E. purpurea root (25%) and E. purpurea herb (25%)
1Std. Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

    4.7 E. purpurea root and E. angustofolia root
1Std. Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

 5 Sum scores after 5 to 10 days8Std. Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)Totals not selected

    5.1 E. purpurea herb freeze-dried pressed juice
1Std. Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

    5.2 E. purpurea herb pressed juice
1Std. Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

    5.3 E. purpurea standardized
2Std. Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

    5.4 95% E. purpurea herb and 5% E. purpurea root (39 mg crude extract/day)
1Std. Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

    5.5 95% E. purpurea herb and 5% E. purpurea root (290 mg crude extract/day)
1Std. Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

    5.6 E. purpurea root (178 mg crude extract/day)
1Std. Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

    5.7 E. purpurea root 450 mg
1Std. Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

    5.8 E. purpurea root 900 mg
1Std. Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

    5.9 Mixture of E. angustifolia root (50%), E. purpurea root (25%) and E. purpurea herb (25%)
1Std. Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

    5.10 E. purpurea root and E. angustofolia root
1Std. Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

 6 Early treatment of prodromi: patients developing a 'full' cold3Risk Ratio (M-H, Fixed, 95% CI)Totals not selected

    6.1 E. purpurea herb pressed juice
2Risk Ratio (M-H, Fixed, 95% CI)0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

    6.2 E. angustofolia root extract with CO2
1Risk Ratio (M-H, Fixed, 95% CI)0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

    6.3 E. angustofolia root extract with 60% ethanol
1Risk Ratio (M-H, Fixed, 95% CI)0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

    6.4 E. angustofolia root extract with 20% ethanol
1Risk Ratio (M-H, Fixed, 95% CI)0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

 7 Number of patients dropping out due to adverse effects11Odds Ratio (M-H, Fixed, 95% CI)Totals not selected

    7.1 E. purpurea herb pressed juice
3Odds Ratio (M-H, Fixed, 95% CI)0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

    7.2 E. purpurea standardized
2Odds Ratio (M-H, Fixed, 95% CI)0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

    7.3 95% E. purpurea herb and 5% E. purpurea root (39 mg crude extract/day)
1Odds Ratio (M-H, Fixed, 95% CI)0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

    7.4 95% E. purpurea herb and 5% E. purpurea root (290 mg crude extract/day)
1Odds Ratio (M-H, Fixed, 95% CI)0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

    7.5 E. purpurea root (178 mg crude extract/day)
1Odds Ratio (M-H, Fixed, 95% CI)0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

    7.6 E. purpurea root 450 mg
1Odds Ratio (M-H, Fixed, 95% CI)0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

    7.7 E. purpurea root 900 mg
1Odds Ratio (M-H, Fixed, 95% CI)0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

    7.8 Tea E. purpurea and angustifolia
1Odds Ratio (M-H, Fixed, 95% CI)0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

    7.9 Mixture of E. angustifolia root (50%), E. purpurea root (25%) and E. purpurea herb (25%)
1Odds Ratio (M-H, Fixed, 95% CI)0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

    7.10 E. purpurea root and E. angustofolia root
1Odds Ratio (M-H, Fixed, 95% CI)0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

    7.11 E. pallida root
1Odds Ratio (M-H, Fixed, 95% CI)0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

 8 Number of patients dropping out13Odds Ratio (M-H, Fixed, 95% CI)Totals not selected

    8.1 E. purpurea herb freeze-dried pressed juice
1Odds Ratio (M-H, Fixed, 95% CI)0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

    8.2 E. purpurea herb pressed juice
3Odds Ratio (M-H, Fixed, 95% CI)0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

    8.3 E. purpurea standardized
2Odds Ratio (M-H, Fixed, 95% CI)0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

    8.4 95% E. purpurea herb and 5% E. purpurea root (39 mg crude extract/day)
1Odds Ratio (M-H, Fixed, 95% CI)0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

    8.5 95% E. purpurea herb and 5% E. purpurea root (290 mg crude extract/day)
1Odds Ratio (M-H, Fixed, 95% CI)0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

    8.6 E. purpurea root (178 mg crude extract/day)
1Odds Ratio (M-H, Fixed, 95% CI)0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

    8.7 E. purpurea root 450 mg
1Odds Ratio (M-H, Fixed, 95% CI)0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

    8.8 E. purpurea root 900 mg
1Odds Ratio (M-H, Fixed, 95% CI)0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

    8.9 Tea E. purpurea and angustifolia
1Odds Ratio (M-H, Fixed, 95% CI)0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

    8.10 Mixture of E. angustifolia root (50%), E. purpurea root (25%) and E. purpurea herb (25%)
1Odds Ratio (M-H, Fixed, 95% CI)0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

    8.11 E. purpurea root and E. angustofolia root
1Odds Ratio (M-H, Fixed, 95% CI)0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

    8.12 E. angustofolia root extract with CO2
1Odds Ratio (M-H, Fixed, 95% CI)0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

    8.13 E. angustofolia root extract with 60% ethanol
1Odds Ratio (M-H, Fixed, 95% CI)0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

    8.14 E. angustofolia root extract with 20% ethanol
1Odds Ratio (M-H, Fixed, 95% CI)0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

    8.15 E. pallida root
1Odds Ratio (M-H, Fixed, 95% CI)0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

 9 Number of patients reporting adverse effects8Odds Ratio (M-H, Fixed, 95% CI)Totals not selected

    9.1 E. purpurea herb pressed juice
3Odds Ratio (M-H, Fixed, 95% CI)0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

    9.2 E. purpurea standardized
1Odds Ratio (M-H, Fixed, 95% CI)0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

    9.3 95% E. purpurea herb and 5% E. purpurea root (39 mg crude extract/day)
1Odds Ratio (M-H, Fixed, 95% CI)0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

    9.4 95% E. purpurea herb and 5% E. purpurea root (290 mg crude extract/day)
1Odds Ratio (M-H, Fixed, 95% CI)0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

    9.5 E. purpurea root (178 mg crude extract/day)
1Odds Ratio (M-H, Fixed, 95% CI)0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

    9.6 Tea E. purpurea and angustifolia
1Odds Ratio (M-H, Fixed, 95% CI)0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

    9.7 Mixture of E. angustifolia root (50%), E. purpurea root (25%) and E. purpurea herb (25%)
1Odds Ratio (M-H, Fixed, 95% CI)0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

    9.8 E. purpurea root and E. angustofolia root
1Odds Ratio (M-H, Fixed, 95% CI)0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

 

Appendices

  1. Top of page
  2. Background
  3. Objectives
  4. Methods
  5. Results
  6. Discussion
  7. Authors' conclusions
  8. Acknowledgements
  9. Data and analyses
  10. Appendices
  11. Feedback
  12. What's new
  13. History
  14. Contributions of authors
  15. Declarations of interest
  16. Sources of support
  17. Differences between protocol and review
  18. Index terms
 

Appendix 1. Embase.com search strategy

#10 #1 AND #9
#9 #4 NOT #8
#8 #5 NOT #7
#7 #5 AND #6
#6 'human'/de
#5 'animal'/de OR 'nonhuman'/de OR 'animal experiment'/de
#4 #2 OR #3
#3 random*:ab,ti OR placebo*:ab,ti OR crossover*:ab,ti OR 'cross-over':ab,ti OR (doubl* NEXT/1 blind*):ab,ti OR allocat*:ab,ti OR trial:ti
#2 'randomized controlled trial'/exp OR 'single blind procedure'/exp OR 'double blind procedure'/exp OR 'crossover procedure'/exp
#1 1922
#1.6 #1.1 OR #1.2 OR #1.3 OR #1.4 OR #1.5
#1.5 coneflower*:ab,ti
#1.4 'e. purpurea':ab,ti OR 'e. pallida':ab,ti OR 'e.angustifolia':ab,ti
#1.3 'echinacea purpurea'/de OR 'echinacea extract'/de OR 'echinacea purpurea extract'/de OR 'echinacea pallida extract'/de OR 'echinacea angustiflora extract'/de
#1.2 echinac*:ab,ti
#1.1 'echinacea'/exp

 

Appendix 2. CINAHL (EBSCO) search strategy

S15 S5 and S14
S14 S6 or S7 or S8 or S9 or S10 or S11 or S12 or S13
S13 TI placebo* OR AB placebo* S
S12 TI clinic* W1 trial* OR AB clinic* W1 trial*
S11 (MH "Quantitative Studies")
S10 (MH "Placebos")
S9 TI random* OR AB random*
S8 TI ((singl* or doubl* or tripl* or trebl*) W1 (blind* or mask*)) OR AB ((singl* or doubl* or tripl* or trebl*) W1 (blind* or mask*))
S7 PT clinical trial
S6 (MH "Clinical Trials+")
S5 S1 or S2 or S3 or S4
S4 TI coneflower* OR AB coneflower*
S3 TI ("E. purpurea" or "E. pallida" or "E. angustifolia") OR AB ("E. purpurea" or "E. pallida" or "E. angustifolia")
S2 TI echinac* OR AB echinac*
S1 (MH "Echinacea")

 

Appendix 3. AMED (Ovid) search strategy

1 exp echinacea/
2 echinac*.tw.
3 1 or 2
4 randomized controlled trials/
5 exp clinical trials/
6 random allocation/
7 double blind method/
8 (clin* adj25 trial*).tw.
9 ((singl* or doubl* or trebl* or tripl*) adj25 (blind* or mask*)).tw.
10 placebos/
11 placebo*.tw.
12 random*.tw.
13 or/4-12
14 3 and 13

 

Appendix 4. LILACS (BIREME) search strategy

> Search > MH:"Echinacea angustifolia" OR MH:"Echinacea purpurea" OR MH:echinacea OR MH:HP4.018.251.105 OR MH:HP4.018.251.116 OR MH:B01.650.940.800.575.100.100.310 OR echinac$ OR "E. angustifolia" OR "E. pallida" OR "E. purpurea"

 

Appendix 5. Web of Science (Thomson Reuters) search strategy


# 3209#2 AND #1

Databases=SCI-EXPANDED, CPCI-S Timespan=All Years

Lemmatization=On  

   

# 21,292,302Topic=(random* or placebo* or ((singl* or doubl*) NEAR/1 blind*) or allocat* or crossover* or "cross over") OR Title=(trial)

Databases=SCI-EXPANDED, CPCI-S Timespan=All Years

Lemmatization=On  

  

# 11,605Topic=(echinac* OR "E. purpurea" OR "E. angustifolia" OR "E. pallida" OR coneflower*)

Databases=SCI-EXPANDED, CPCI-S Timespan=All Years

Lemmatization=On  



 

Appendix 6. Previous searches

For the first publication of this review in The Cochrane Library, 1999, Issue 1 (Melchart 1999) the following sources were searched:

  1. MEDLINE (1966 to 1998): all hits for Echinac* screened;
  2. EMBASE (1991 to 1998): all hits for Echinac* screened;
  3. the Cochrane Acute Respiratory Infections Group Specialized Register: all hits for Echinac* screened;
  4. the database of the Cochrane Field Complementary Medicine: all hits for Echinac* screened;
  5. the database Phytodok (Munich, specialized on Phytomedicine) screening all clinical studies for Echinac*;
  6. bibliographies of identified articles;
  7. existing reviews;
  8. manufacturers and researchers in the field (who were contacted to identify published and unpublished trials);
  9. proceedings of phytomedicine congresses (International Congresses on Phytomedicine and Congresses of the German Society of Phytotherapy) (screened).

For the 2007 update we searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library 2007, Issue 3); PubMed (1997 to September 2007); EMBASE (1998 to April 2007); AMED (to August 2005) and the Centre for Complementary Medicine Research (in Munich) (1988 to September 2007). We also contacted experts and screened references of reviews.

We searched PubMed and CENTRAL using the following terms combined with the highly sensitive search strategy devised by Dickersin (Dickersin 1994).

1 exp ECHINACEA/
2 Echinacea
3 or/1-2

We searched EMBASE and AMED using adapted terms. We searched the database of the Centre of Complementary Medicine Research in Munich for controlled trials of Echinacea.

We screened bibliographies of identified trials and review articles for further potentially relevant publications. We contacted experts in the field and asked about further published and unpublished studies.

 

Feedback

  1. Top of page
  2. Background
  3. Objectives
  4. Methods
  5. Results
  6. Discussion
  7. Authors' conclusions
  8. Acknowledgements
  9. Data and analyses
  10. Appendices
  11. Feedback
  12. What's new
  13. History
  14. Contributions of authors
  15. Declarations of interest
  16. Sources of support
  17. Differences between protocol and review
  18. Index terms
 

Duration of Echinacea dosage

 

Summary

I wish to comment on the Cochrane review 'Echinacea for preventing and treating the common cold'. It is claimed in the Hot Topic of the Month (Relief from coughs and colds), August 2001, p. 5, para. 6.1, that "the German drug regulatory authority recommends that it be used for no longer than eight weeks at a time". I have asked the Consumer Network about the evidence for this and been told that it is not available. Nevertheless, I think that if it is indeed a recommendation of the German drug regulatory authority, it should be mentioned in both the review and the abstract.

I certify that I have no affiliations with or involvement in any organisation or entity with a direct financial interest in the subject matter of my criticisms.

 

Reply

We appreciate this comment. It is correct that the German drug regulatory authority recommends that Echinacea preparations should not be taken for longer than eight weeks at a time. While there is no evidence that longer intake can be harmful, such a precaution seems justified in the absence of data on long-term use. We included a statement on this issue in the review conclusion section 'Implications for practice'.

Klaus Linde

 

Contributors

David Potter
Comment posted 02/06/2005

 

What's new

  1. Top of page
  2. Background
  3. Objectives
  4. Methods
  5. Results
  6. Discussion
  7. Authors' conclusions
  8. Acknowledgements
  9. Data and analyses
  10. Appendices
  11. Feedback
  12. What's new
  13. History
  14. Contributions of authors
  15. Declarations of interest
  16. Sources of support
  17. Differences between protocol and review
  18. Index terms

Last assessed as up-to-date: 5 June 2013.


DateEventDescription

2 July 2014AmendedA mistake in the Abstract regarding treatment trials reporting data on the duration of colds has been corrected.



 

History

  1. Top of page
  2. Background
  3. Objectives
  4. Methods
  5. Results
  6. Discussion
  7. Authors' conclusions
  8. Acknowledgements
  9. Data and analyses
  10. Appendices
  11. Feedback
  12. What's new
  13. History
  14. Contributions of authors
  15. Declarations of interest
  16. Sources of support
  17. Differences between protocol and review
  18. Index terms

Protocol first published: Issue 4, 1997
Review first published: Issue 1, 1999


DateEventDescription

5 June 2013New citation required and conclusions have changedChange to authorship byline: new first author Marlies Karsch-Völk. Dieter Melchart was not involved in this update.

Inclusion criteria changed: now only randomized controlled trials and also studies on induced rhinovirus infections included.

Outcome measures changed: duration of cold is now a primary outcome of treatment trials.

Conclusions changed: possibly slight effect of Echinacea in the prevention of colds. Evidence for treatment effectiveness is weak.

5 June 2013New search has been performedSearches updated. Seven new studies were included (Barrett 2010; Hall 2007; Jawad 2012; O'Neill 2008; Tiralongo 2012; Turner 2005; Zhang 2003). Two formerly excluded studies are now included (Sperber 2004; Turner 2000).

One formerly included study is now excluded (Spasov 2004) and 12 new trials were excluded (Di Pierro 2012; Hauke 2002; Heinen-Kammerer 2005; Isbaniah 2011; Minetti 2011; Narimanian 2005; Naser 2005; Saunders 2007; Schapowal 2009; Schoop 2006a; Wahl 2008; Yakoot 2011).

15 March 2010New search has been performedSearches conducted

6 August 2009AmendedContact details updated.

8 May 2009AmendedContact details updated.

16 January 2008AmendedConverted to new review format.

5 October 2007New search has been performedConclusions remain unchanged.

12 September 2005New search has been performedSearches conducted.

1 June 2005Feedback has been incorporatedFeedback and reply added.

16 November 1998New search has been performedReview first published.



 

Contributions of authors

  1. Top of page
  2. Background
  3. Objectives
  4. Methods
  5. Results
  6. Discussion
  7. Authors' conclusions
  8. Acknowledgements
  9. Data and analyses
  10. Appendices
  11. Feedback
  12. What's new
  13. History
  14. Contributions of authors
  15. Declarations of interest
  16. Sources of support
  17. Differences between protocol and review
  18. Index terms

Co-ordination of the review update: MKV
Planning of updates: MKV, KL, BB, DK
Searches in addition to searches done by the Cochrane ARI Group: MKV
Study selection, data extraction and quality assessment: MKV, KL, BB, DK
Extraction of pharmaceutical data/pharmaceutical expertise: KAW, RB
Statistical analyses: MKV, KL
Drafting of the manuscript: MKV, KL
Interpretation of results, critical feedback on draft versions: BB, DK, KAW, RB 

 

Declarations of interest

  1. Top of page
  2. Background
  3. Objectives
  4. Methods
  5. Results
  6. Discussion
  7. Authors' conclusions
  8. Acknowledgements
  9. Data and analyses
  10. Appendices
  11. Feedback
  12. What's new
  13. History
  14. Contributions of authors
  15. Declarations of interest
  16. Sources of support
  17. Differences between protocol and review
  18. Index terms

Klaus Linde was involved in one, Karin Ardjomand-Woelkart in one, Bruce Barrett in two and Rudolf Bauer in four of the studies included in this review. Marlies Karsch-Völk and David Kiefer have no conflict of interest. Authors did not carry out data extraction or quality assessment of studies they were involved in.

 

Sources of support

  1. Top of page
  2. Background
  3. Objectives
  4. Methods
  5. Results
  6. Discussion
  7. Authors' conclusions
  8. Acknowledgements
  9. Data and analyses
  10. Appendices
  11. Feedback
  12. What's new
  13. History
  14. Contributions of authors
  15. Declarations of interest
  16. Sources of support
  17. Differences between protocol and review
  18. Index terms
 

Internal sources

  • Centre for Complementary Medicine Research, Technische Universität München, Germany.
  • Institute of Pharmaceutical Sciences, Department of Pharmacognosy, Karl-Franzens-University, Graz, Austria.
  • Department of Family Medicine, University of Wisconsin, USA.

 

External sources

  • National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine at the U.S. National Institutes of Health (RO1 AT001428), USA.
  • Robert Wood Johnson Foundation Generalist Physician Scholars Program, USA.

 

Differences between protocol and review

  1. Top of page
  2. Background
  3. Objectives
  4. Methods
  5. Results
  6. Discussion
  7. Authors' conclusions
  8. Acknowledgements
  9. Data and analyses
  10. Appendices
  11. Feedback
  12. What's new
  13. History
  14. Contributions of authors
  15. Declarations of interest
  16. Sources of support
  17. Differences between protocol and review
  18. Index terms

Change to authorship byline: New first author is Marlies Karsch-Völk. Dieter Melchart was not involved in this update.
Inclusion criteria changed: Now only randomized controlled trials and also studies on induced rhinovirus infections have been included.
Outcome measures changed: Duration of cold is now a primary outcome of treatment trials.

* Indicates the major publication for the study

References

References to studies included in this review

  1. Top of page
  2. AbstractRésumé scientifique
  3. Background
  4. Objectives
  5. Methods
  6. Results
  7. Discussion
  8. Authors' conclusions
  9. Acknowledgements
  10. Data and analyses
  11. Appendices
  12. Feedback
  13. What's new
  14. History
  15. Contributions of authors
  16. Declarations of interest
  17. Sources of support
  18. Differences between protocol and review
  19. Characteristics of studies
  20. References to studies included in this review
  21. References to studies excluded from this review
  22. References to studies awaiting assessment
  23. Additional references
  24. References to other published versions of this review
Barrett 2002 {published and unpublished data}
  • Barrett BP, Brown RL, Locken K, Maberry R, Bobula JA, D'Alessio D. Treatment of the common cold with unrefined Echinacea. A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. Annals of Internal Medicine 2002;137:939-46.
Barrett 2010 {published data only}
  • Barrett B, Brown R, Rakel D, Mundt M, Bone K, Barlow S. Echinacea for treating the common cold. Annals of Internal Medicine 2010;153:769-77.
  • Barrett P, Brown R, Rakel D, Rabago D, Marchand L, Scheder J, et al. Placebo effects and the common cold: a randomized controlled trial. Annals of Family Medicine 2011;9:312-22.
Bräunig 1992 {published and unpublished data}
  • Bräunig B, Dorn M, Knick E. [Echinaceae purpureae radix: zur Stärkung der körpereigenen Abwehr bei grippalen Infekten]. Zeitschrift für Phytotherapie 1992;13:7-13.
Brinkeborn 1999 {published and unpublished data}
  • Brinkeborn R, Shah D, Geissbühler S, Degenring FH. Echinaforce for the treatment of the common cold. Results of a placebo-controlled double-blind trial in Sweden [Echinaforce zur Behandlung von akuten Erkältungen. Ergebnisse einer placebokontrollierten Doppelblindstudie in Schweden]. Schweizerische Zeitschrift für Ganzheitsmedizin 1998;10:26-9.
  • Brinkeborn RM, Shah DV, Degenring FH. Echinaforce and other Echinacea fresh plant preparations in the treatment of the common cold. A randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind clinical trial. Phytomedicine 1999;6:1-5.
Dorn 1997 {published and unpublished data}
  • Bräunig B, Knick E. [Therapeutische Erfahrungen mit Echinacea pallida bei grippalen Infekten]. Naturheilpraxis mit Naturmedizin 1993;1:72-5.
  • Dorn M, Knick E, Lewith G. Placebo-controlled, double-blind study of Echinaceae pallidae radix in upper respiratory tract infections. Complementary Therapies in Medicine 1997;5:40-2.
Galea 1996 {unpublished data only}
  • Galea S, Thacker K. Double blind prospective trial investigating the effectiveness of a commonly prescribed herbal remedy in altering duration, severity and symptoms of the common cold. Unpublished report 1996.
Goel 2004 {published and unpublished data}
Goel 2005 {published and unpublished data}
Grimm 1999 {published data only}
  • Grimm W, Müller HH. A randomized controlled trial of the effect of fluid extract of Echinacea purpurea on the incidence and severity of colds and respiratory infections. American Journal of Medicine 1999;106:138-43.
  • Schöneberger D. [Einfluß der immunstimulierenden Wirkung von Preßsaft aus Herba Echinaceae purpureae auf Verlauf und Schweregrad von Erkältungskrankheiten]. Forum Immunologie 1992;2(8):18-22.
Hall 2007 {published data only}
Hoheisel 1997 {published data only}
  • Hoheisel O, Sandberg M, Bertram S, Bulitta M, Schäfer M. Echinagard treatment shortens the course of the common cold: a double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trial. European Journal of Clinical Research 1997;9:261-9.
Jawad 2012 {published and unpublished data}
  • Jawad M, Schoop R, Suter A, Klein P, Eccles R. Safety and efficacy profile of Echinacea purpurea to prevent common cold episodes: A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. Evidence-Based Complementary and Alternative Medicine 2012;2012:1-7.
Kim 2002a {unpublished data only}
  • Kim KH, Levitsky DA. Echinacea's effect on the common cold: a double-blind, placebo controlled, clinical trial. Unpublished report 2002.
Lindenmuth 2000 {published data only}
  • Lindenmuth GF, Lindenmuth EB. The efficacy of Echinacea compound herbal tea preparation on the severity and duration of upper respiratory and flu symptoms: a randomized, double-blind placebo-controlled study. Journal of Alternative and Complementary Medicine 2000;6:327-34.
Melchart 1998 {published and unpublished data}
  • Melchart D, Walther E, Linde K, Brandmaier R, Lersch C. Echinacea root extracts for the prevention of upper respiratory tract infections - a double-blind, placebo-controlled randomized trial. Archives of Family Medicine 1998;7:541-5.
O'Neill 2008 {published data only}
  • O'Neil J, Hughes S, Lourie A, Zweifler J. Effects of echinacea on the frequency of upper respiratory tract symptoms: a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. Annals of Allergy, Asthma & Immunology 2008;100:384-8.
Schulten 2001 {published data only}
  • Schulten B, Bulitta M, Ballering-Brühl B, Köster U, Schäfer M. Efficacy of Echinacea purpurea in patients with a common cold. A placebo-controlled, randomised, double-blind clinical trial. Arzneimittel Forschung 2001;51(ii):563-8.
Sperber 2004 {published data only}
Taylor 2003 {published data only}
  • Taylor JA, Weber W, Standish L, Quinn H, Goesling J, McGann M. Efficacy and safety of Echinacea in treating upper respiratory tract infections in children. A randomized controlled trial. JAMA 2003;290:2824-30.
  • Weber W, Taylor JA, Van der Stoep A, Weiss NS, Standish LJ, Calabrese C. Echinacea purpurea for prevention of upper respiratory tract infections in children. Journal of Alternative and Complementary Medicine 2005;11(6):1021-6.
Tiralongo 2012 {published data only}
  • Tiralongo E, Lea RA, Wee SS, Hanna MM, Griffiths LR. Randomised, double blind, placebo-controlled trial of Echinacea supplementation in air travellers. Evidence-Based Complementary and Alternative Medicine 2012;2012:1-9.
Turner 2000 {published and unpublished data}
Turner 2005 {published data only}
  • Turner RB, Bauer R, Woelkart K, Hulsey TC, Gangemi D. An evaluation of Echinacea angustofolia in experimental rhinovirus infections. New England Journal of Medicine 2005;252:341-8.
Yale 2004 {published and unpublished data}
  • Yale SH, Liu K. Echinacea purpurea therapy for the treatment of the common cold. A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trial. Archives of Internal Medicine 2004;164:1237-41.
Zhang 2003 {unpublished data only}
  • Zhang X, Lowe D, Badesha G, Ishaq S, Rai H, Williams P, et al. A double-blinded trial evaluating the effectiveness of Echinacea in countering upper respiratory tract infections. Unpublished report 2003.

References to studies excluded from this review

  1. Top of page
  2. AbstractRésumé scientifique
  3. Background
  4. Objectives
  5. Methods
  6. Results
  7. Discussion
  8. Authors' conclusions
  9. Acknowledgements
  10. Data and analyses
  11. Appendices
  12. Feedback
  13. What's new
  14. History
  15. Contributions of authors
  16. Declarations of interest
  17. Sources of support
  18. Differences between protocol and review
  19. Characteristics of studies
  20. References to studies included in this review
  21. References to studies excluded from this review
  22. References to studies awaiting assessment
  23. Additional references
  24. References to other published versions of this review
Baetgen 1984 {published data only}
  • Baetgen D. [Erfolge in der Keuchhusten-Behandlung mit Echinacin]. Therapiewoche 1984;34:5115-9.
Baetgen 1988 {published data only}
  • Baetgen D. [Behandlung der akuten Bronchitis im Kindesalter]. Therapiewoche Pädiatrie 1988;1:66-70.
Bendel 1989 {published data only}
  • Bendel R, Bendel V, Renner K, Carstens V, Stolze K. [Zusatzbehandlung mit Esberitox N bei Patientinnen mit chemo-strahlentherapeutischer Behandlung eines fortgeschrittenen Mammakarzinoms]. Onkologie 1989;12(Suppl 3):32-8.
Bendel 1990 {published data only}
  • Bendel R, Renner K, Stolze K. [Zusatzbehandlung mit Esberitox bei Patientinnen mit kurativer adjuvanter Bestrahlung nach Mammakarzinom]. Strahlentherapie und Onkologie 1988;164(5):278-83.
Blumröder 1985 {published data only}
  • Blumröder WOv. [Angina lacunaris - eine Untersuchung zum Thema "Steigerung der körpereigenen Abwehr"]. Zeitschrift für Allgemeinmedizin 1985;61(8):271-3.
Coeugniet 1986 {published data only}
  • Coeugniet E, Kühnast R. [Rezidivierende Candidiasis. Adjuvante Immuntherapie mit verschiedenen Echinacea-Darreichungsformen]. Therapiewoche 1986;36:3352-8.
Cohen 2004 {published data only}
  • Cohen HA, Varsano I, Kahan E, Sarrell EM, Uziel Y. Effectiveness of an herbal preparation containing Echinacea, Propolis, and vitamin C in preventing respiratory tract infections in children. A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, multicenter study. Archives of Pediatrics and Adolescent Medicine 2004;158:217-21.
Cubasch 1992 {published data only}
  • Cubasch H, Stocksmeier U. [Deutliche Zunahme der T-Helferzellen]. Therapiewoche 1992;42:990-1000.
Di Pierro 2012 {published data only}
  • Di Pierro F, Rapacioli G, Ferrara T, Togni S. Use of a standardized extract from Echinacea angustofolia (Polinacea) for the prevention of respiratory tract infections. Alternative Medicine Review 2012;17:36-41.
Dorn 1989 {published and unpublished data}
  • Dorn M. [Milderung grippaler Infekte durch ein pflanzliches Immunstimulans]. Natur- und Ganzheitsmedizin 1989;2:314-9.
Ehringer 1968 {published data only}
  • Ehringer H. [Objektivierbare Venentonisierung nach oraler Gabe eines Kombinationspräparates mit Roßkastanienextrakt]. Arzmeimittel-Forschung 1968;18:432-4.
Engel 1988 {published data only}
  • Engel G. [Behandlung grippaler Infekte mit einem homöopathischen Komplexarzneimittel]. Therapiewoche 1988;38:3586-9.
Forth 1981 {published data only}
  • Forth H, Beuscher N. [Beeinflussung der Häufigkeit banaler Erkältungsinfekte durch Esberitox]. Zeitschrift für Allgemeinmedizin 1981;57(32):2272-5.
Freitag 1984 {published data only}
  • Freitag U, Stammwitz U. [Reduzierte Krankheitsdauer bei Pertussis durch unspezifisches Immunstimulans]. Der Kinderarzt 1984;15:1068-71.
Freyer 1974 {published data only}
  • Freyer HU. [Häufigkeit banaler Infekte im Kindesalter und Möglichkeiten der Prophylaxe]. Fortschritte der Medizin 1974;92:165-8.
Hauke 2002 {published data only}
  • Hauke W, Kohler G, Henneicke-von Zepelin HH, Freudenstein J. Esberitox N as supportive therapy when providing standard antibiotic treatment in subjects with a severe bacterial infection (acute exacerbation of chronic bronchitis) - A multicentric, prospective, double-blind, placebo-controlled study. Chemotherapy 2002;48(5):259-66.
Heinen-Kammerer 2005 {published data only}
  • Heinen-Kammerer T, Holtmannspötter C, Schnabel S, Motzkat K, Kencke P, Rychlik R. Effectiveness of Echinacin in therapy of chronic recurrent respiratory disease [Nutzenbewertung der Therapie chronisch rezidivierender Atemwegsinfekte mit Echinacin]. Das Gesundheitswesen 2005;67:296-301.
Helbig 1961 {published data only}
  • Helbig G. [Unspezifische Reizkörpertherapie zur Infektionsprophylaxe]. Medizinische Klinik 1961;56:1512-4.
Henneicke 1999 {published data only}
  • Henneicke-von Zepelin HH, Hentschel C, Schnitker J, Kohnen R, Köhler G, Wüstenberg P. Efficacy and safety of a fixed combination phytomedicine in the treatment of the common cold (acute viral respiratory tract infection): results of a randomised, double blind, placebo controlled, multicentre study. Current Medical Research and Opinion 1999;15:214-27.
  • Henneicke-von-Zepelin HH, Hentschel C, Kohnen R, Köhler G, Wüstenberg P. [Plazebokontrollierte, randomisierte, doppelblinde, multizentrische klinische Prüfung zur therapeutischen Wirksamkeit und Sicherheit von Esberitox N Tabletten bei Patienten mit akutem viralem Atemwegsinfekt (Erkältung)]. Abstractband, 8. Kongreß der Gesellschaft für Phytotherapie. 1997:27.
Hill 1993 {published data only}
  • Hill N, van Haselen RA. Clinical trial of a homeopathic insect after-bite treatment. HomInt R&D Newsletter 1993;3/4:4-5.
Hill 1995 {published data only}
  • Hill N, Stam C, Tuinder S, van Haselen RA. A placebo-controlled trial investigating the efficacy of a homeopathic after-bite gel in reducing mosquito-bite induced erythema. European Journal of Clinical Pharmacology 1995;49:103-8.
Hill 1996 {published data only}
Isbaniah 2011 {published data only}
Kim 2002b {published data only}
  • Kim LS, Waters RF, Burkholder PM. Immunological activity of larch arabinogalactan and Echinacea: a preliminary, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. Alternative Medicine Review 2002;7:138-49.
Kleinschmidt 1965 {published data only}
  • Kleinschmidt H. [Versuche zur Herabsetzung der Infektneigung bei Kleinkindern mit Esberitox]. Therapie der Gegenwart 1965;104(9):1258-62.
Melchart 1995a {published data only}
  • Jurcic K, Melchart D, Holzmann M, et al. Zwei Probandenstudien zur Stimulierung der Granulozytenphagozytose durch Echinacea-Extrakt-haltige Präparate. Zeitschrift für Phytotherapie 1989;10:67-70.
  • Melchart D, Linde K, Worku F, Sarkady L, Holzmann M, et al. Results of five randomized studies on the immunomodulatory activity of preparations of Echinacea. Journal of Alternative and Complementary Medicine 1995;1:145-60.
  • Wagner H, Jurcic K, Doenicke A, Rosenhuber E, Behrens N. [Die Beeinflussung der Phagozytosefähigkeit von Granulozyten durch homöopathische Arzneipräparate. In-vitro-Tests und kontrollierte Einfachblindstudien]. Arzneimittel Forschung 1986;36(II):1421-5.
Melchart 1995b {published data only}
  • Jurcic K, Melchart D, Holzmann M, et al. [Zwei Probandenstudien zur Stimulierung der Granulozytenphagozytose durch Echinacea-Extrakt-haltige Präparate]. Zeitschrift für Phytotherapie 1989;10:67-70.
  • Melchart D, Linde K, Worku F, Sarkady L, Holzmann M, et al. Results of five randomized studies on the immunomodulatory activity of preparations of Echinacea. Journal of Alternative and Complementary Medicine 1995;1:145-60.
Melchart 1995c {published data only}
  • Melchart D, Linde K, Worku F, Sarkady L, Holzmann M, et al. Results of five randomized studies on the immunomodulatory activity of preparations of Echinacea. Journal of Alternative and Complementary Medicine 1995;1:145-60.
Melchart 1995d {published data only}
  • Melchart D, Linde K, Worku F, Sarkady L, Holzmann M, et al. Results of five randomized studies on the immunomodulatory activity of preparations of Echinacea. Journal of Alternative and Complementary Medicine 1995;1:145-60.
Melchart 1995e {published data only}
  • Melchart D, Linde K, Worku F, Sarkady L, Holzmann M, et al. Results of five randomized studies on the immunomodulatory activity of preparations of Echinacea. Journal of Alternative and Complementary Medicine 1995;1:145-60.
Minetti 2011 {published data only}
  • Minetti AM, Forti S, Tassone G, Torretta S, Pignataro L. Efficacy of complex herbal compound of Echinacea angustofolia (ImoviralTM Junior) in recurrent upper respiratory tract infections during pediatric age: preliminary results. Minerva Pediatrica 2011;63:177-82.
Narimanian 2005 {published data only}
  • Narimanian M, Badalyan M, Panosyan V, Gabrielyan E, Panossian A, Wikmann A, et al. Randomized trial of a fixed combination (KanJang) of herbal extracts containing Adhatoda vasica, Echinacea purpurea and Eleutherococcus senticosus in patients with upper respiratory tract infections. Phytomedicine 2005;12:539-47.
Naser 2005 {published data only}
  • Naser B, Lund B, Henneicke-von Zepelin HH, Köhler G, Lehmacher W, Scaglione F. A randomized, double-blind, placebo controlled clinical dose-response trial of an extract of Baptista, Echinacea and Thuja for the treatment of patients with common cold. Phytomedicine 2005;12:715-22.
Pohl 1970 {published data only}
  • Pohl P. Zur Therapie der strahlenbedingten Leukopenie mit Esberitox. Therapie der Gegenwart 1970;109(6):902-6.
Quadripur 1976 {published data only}
  • Quadripur SA. [Medikamentöse Beeinflussung der Phagozytosefähigkeit der Granulozyten]. Therapie der Gegenwart 1976;115(6):1072-8.
Reitz 1990 {published and unpublished data}
  • Reitz HD. [Immunmodulatoren mit pflanzlichen Wirkstoffen. 2. Teil: eine wissenschaftliche Studie am Beispiel Esberitox N]. Notabene Medici 1990;20:362-6.
Sartor 1972 {published data only}
  • Sartor KJ. [Zur Wirksamkeit von Esberitox in der Behandlung strahlenbedingter Leukopenien]. Therapie der Gegenwart 1972;111(8):1147-50.
Saunders 2007 {published data only}
  • Saunders PR, Smith F, Schusky RW. Echinacea purpurea L. in children: safety, tolerability, compliance, and clinical effectiveness in upper respiratory tract infections. Canadian Journal of Physiology and Pharmacology 2007;85:1195-9.
Scaglione 1995 {published data only}
  • Scaglione F, Lund B. Efficacy in the treatment of the common cold of a preparation containing an Echinacea extract. International Journal of Immunotherapy 1995;6:163-6.
Schapowal 2009 {published data only}
  • Schapowal A, Berger D, Klein P, Suter A. Echinacea/sage or chlorhexidine/lidocaine for treating acute sore throats: a randomized double-blind trial. European Journal of Medical Research 2009;14:406-12.
Schmidt 1990 {published data only}
  • Schmidt U, Albrecht M, Schenk N. [Pflanzliches Immunstimulans senkt Häufigkeit grippaler Infekte. Plazebokontrollierte Doppelblindstudie mit einem kombinierten Echinacea-Präparat mit 646 Studenten der Kölner Universität]. Natur- und Ganzheitsmedizin 1990;3(9):277-81.
Schoop 2006a {published data only}
  • Schoop R, Büechi S, Suter A. Open, multicenter study to evaluate the tolerability and efficacy of Echinaforce forte tablets in athletes. Advances in Therapy 2006;23:823-33.
Schwarz 2002 {published data only}
  • Schwarz E, Metzler J, Diedrich JP, Freudenstein J, Bode C, Bode JC. Oral administration of freshly expressed juice of Echinacea purpurea herbs fail to stimulate the non-specific immune response in healthy young men: results of a double-blind, placebo-controlled crossover study. Journal of Immunology 2002;25:413-20.
Spasov 2004 {published data only}
  • Spasov AA, Ostrovskij OV, Chernikov MV, Wikman G. Comparative controlled study of Andrographis paniculata fixed combination, Kan Jang and an Echinacea preparation as adjuvant, in the treatment of uncomplicated respiratory disease in children. Phytotherapy Research 2004;18:47-53.
Stolze 1986 {published data only}
  • Stolze H, Forth H. [Eine Antibiotikabehandlung kann durch zusätzliche Immunstimulierung optimiert werden]. Der Kassenarzt 1983;23:43-8.
Thom 1997 {published data only}
Timmermanns 1990 {published data only}
  • Timmermanns LM, Timmermanns LG. [Mesure de l'activité des extraits d'Echinaceae et de Sabal dans le traitement des mégavessies idiopathiques chez la femme]. Acta Urologica Belgica 1990;58(2):43-59.
Vonau 2001 {published data only}
  • Vonau B, Chard S, Mandalia S, Wilkinson D, Barton SE. Does the extract of the plant Echinacea purpurea influence the clinical course of recurrent genital herpes. International Journal of STD and AIDS 2001;12:154-8.
Vorberg 1984 {published data only}
  • Vorberg G. [Bei Erkältung unspezifische Immunabwehr stimulieren]. Ärztliche Praxis 1984;36:97-8.
Vorberg 1989 {published and unpublished data}
  • Vorberg G, Schneider B. [Pflanzliches Immunstimulans verkürzt grippalen Infekt. Doppelblindstudie belegt die Steigerung der unspezifischen Infektabwehr]. Arzmeimittel-Forschung 1989;36:3-8.
Wahl 2008 {published data only}
  • Wahl RA, Aldous MB, Worden KA, Grant KL. Echinacea purpurea and osteopathic manipulative treatment in children with recurrent otitis media: a randomized controlled trial. BMC Complementary and Alternative Medicine 2008;8:1-9.
Yakoot 2011 {published data only}
  • Yakoot M, Salem A. Efficacy and safety of a multiherbal formula with vitamin C and zinc (Immumax) in the management of the common cold. International Journal of General Medicine 2011;4:45-51.
Zimmer 1985 {published data only}
  • Zimmer M. [Gezielte konservative Therapie der akuten Sinusitis in der HNO-Praxis]. Therapiewoche 1985;35(36):4024-8.

References to studies awaiting assessment

  1. Top of page
  2. AbstractRésumé scientifique
  3. Background
  4. Objectives
  5. Methods
  6. Results
  7. Discussion
  8. Authors' conclusions
  9. Acknowledgements
  10. Data and analyses
  11. Appendices
  12. Feedback
  13. What's new
  14. History
  15. Contributions of authors
  16. Declarations of interest
  17. Sources of support
  18. Differences between protocol and review
  19. Characteristics of studies
  20. References to studies included in this review
  21. References to studies excluded from this review
  22. References to studies awaiting assessment
  23. Additional references
  24. References to other published versions of this review
Rahmati 2012 {published data only}
  • Rahmati MB, Fatemeh S, Hamedi Y, Khadem AA, Rezai MS. Efficacy and safety of echinacea root extracts in the treatment ot pediatric common cold: a randomized clinical trial [ﯽﮔدرﻮﺧﺎﻣﺮﺳ نﺎﻣرد رد ﻪﺳﺎﻨﯿﮐا ﻪﺸﯾر هﺮﯿﺷ ضراﻮﻋ و ﯽﺸﺨﺑ ﺮﺛارد نﺎﮐدﻮﮐ : هﺪﺷ ﯽﻓدﺎﺼﺗ ﯽﻨﯿﻟﺎﺑ ﯽﺋﺎﻣزآرﺎﮐ ﻪﻌﻟﺎﻄﻣ ﮏﯾ]. Journal of Mazandaran University of Medical Sciences 2012;22(93):12-8.

Additional references

  1. Top of page
  2. AbstractRésumé scientifique
  3. Background
  4. Objectives
  5. Methods
  6. Results
  7. Discussion
  8. Authors' conclusions
  9. Acknowledgements
  10. Data and analyses
  11. Appendices
  12. Feedback
  13. What's new
  14. History
  15. Contributions of authors
  16. Declarations of interest
  17. Sources of support
  18. Differences between protocol and review
  19. Characteristics of studies
  20. References to studies included in this review
  21. References to studies excluded from this review
  22. References to studies awaiting assessment
  23. Additional references
  24. References to other published versions of this review
Altamirano-Dimas 2007
  • Altamirano-Dimas M, Hudson JB, Cochrane D, Nelson C, Arnason JT. Modulation of immune response gene expression by echinacea extracts: results of a gene array analysis. Canadian Journal of Physiology and Pharmacology 2007;85(11):1091-8.
Barrett 1999
Barrett 2003
Bauer 1989
  • Bauer R, Remiger P, Jurcic K, Wagner H. Effect of extracts of Echinacea on phagocytic activity [Beeinflussung der Phagozytoseaktivität durch Echinacea-Extrakte]. Zeitschrift für Phytotherapie 1989;10:43-8.
Birt 2008
  • Birt DF, Widrlechner MP, Lalone CA, Wu L, Bae J, Solco AKS, et al. Echinacea in infection. American Journal of Clinical Nutrition 2008;87(Suppl 2):488-92.
Blumenthal 2005
  • Blumenthal M. Herb sales down 6 percent in mainstream market. Herbal Gram 2005;66:63.
Bodinet 2002
  • Bodinet C, Mentel R, Wegner U, Lindequist U, Teuscher E, Freudenstein J. Effect of oral application of an immunomodulating plant extract on influenza virus type A infection in mice. Planta Medica 2002;68:896-900.
Caruso 2005
Chavez 2007
  • Chavez M, Chacon M, Badilla B, Arevalo C. Effect of Echinacea purpurea (Asteraceae) aqueous extract on antibody response to Bothrops asper venom and immune cell response.. Revista de Biologia Tropical 2007;55(1):113-9.
Chicca 2009
  • Chicca A, Raduner S, Pellati F, Strompen T, Altmann KH, Schoop R, et al. Synergistic immunopharmacological effects of N-alkamides in Echinacea purpurea herbal extracts. International Immunopharmacology 2009;9(7-8):850-8.
Denny 1995
  • Denny FW Jr. The clinical impact of human respiratory virus infections. American Journal of Respiratory Critical Care Medicine 1995;152(4 Pt 2):S4-12.
Dickersin 1994
  • Dickersin K, Scherer R, Lefebvre C. Identifying relevant studies for systematic reviews. BMJ 1994;309:1286-91.
Eccles 2002
Fendrick 2003
  • Fendrick AM, Monto AS, Nightengale B, Sarnes M. The economic burden of non-influenza-related viral respiratory tract infection in the United States. Archives of Internal Medicine 2003;163:487-94.
Fergusson 2004
Gertsch 2004
  • Gertsch J, Schoop R, Kuenzle U, Suter A. Echinacea alkylamides modulate TNF-alpha gene expression via cannabinoid receptor CB2 and multiple signal transduction pathways. FEBS Letters 2004;577:563-9.
Ghaemi 2009
  • Ghaemi A, Soleimanjahi H, Gill P, Arefian E, Soudi S, Hassan Z. Echinacea purpurea polysaccharide reduces the latency rate in herpes simples virus type-1 infections. Intervirology 2009;52(1):29-34.
Gilroy 2003
Guppy 2011
Gurbuz 2010
  • Gurbuz E, Balevi T, Kurtoglu V, Coskun B, Oznurlu Y, Kan Y, et al. Effects of Echinacea extract on the performance, antibody titres, and intestinal histology of layer chicks. British Poultry Science 2010;51(6):805-10.
Hajos 2012
  • Hajos N, Holderith N, Nemeth B, Papp OI, Szabo GG, Zemankovics R, et al. The effects of an Echinacea preparation on synaptic transmission and the firing properties of CA1 pyramidal cells in the hippocampus. Phytotherapy Research 2012;26(3):354-62.
Haller 2013
Hao 2011
Hemilä 2013
Higgins 2003
Higgins 2011a
  • Higgins JPT, Deeks JJ (editors). Chapter 7: Selecting studies and collecting data. In: Higgins JPT, Green S editor(s). Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. 5.0.1. Chichester, UK: Wiley-Blackwell, 2011.
Higgins 2011b
  • Higgins JPT, Altman DG, Gotzsche PC, Jüni P, Moher D Oxman AD, et al. The Cochrane Collaboration' stool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials. BMJ 2011;343(d5928):1-9.
Huntley 2005
Kassel 2010
Lalone 2009
  • Lalone CA, Rizshsky L, Hammer KD, Wu L, Solco AK, Yum M, et al. Endogeneous levels of Echinacea alkylamides and ketones are important contributors to the inhibition of prostaglandin E2 and nitric oxide production in cultured macrophages. Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry 2009;57(19):8820-30.
Lefebvre 2011
  • Lefebvre C, Manheimer E, Glanville J. Chapter 6: Searching for studies. In: Higgins JPT, Green S editor(s). Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions Version 5.1.0 [updated March 2011]. Available from www.cochrane-handbook.org. Chichester, UK: Wiley-Blackwell, 2011.
Lissiman 2012
Matthias 2005
  • Matthias A, Addison RS, Penman KG, Dickinson RG, Bone KM, Lehmann RP. Echinacea alkamide disposition and pharmacokinetics in humans after tablet ingestion. Life Sciences 2005;77(16):2018-29.
Matthias 2008
Melchart 1994
  • Melchart D, Linde K, Worku F, Bauer R, Wagner H. Immunomodulation with Echinacea - a systematic review of controlled clinical trials. Phytomedicine 1994;1:245-54.
Monto 1987
  • Monto AS, Bryan ER, Ohmit S. Rhinovirus infections in Tecimseh Michigan: frequency of illness and number of serotypes. Journal of Infectious Diseases 1987;156:43-9.
Mullins 2002
  • Mullins RJ, Heddle R. Adverse reactions associated with Echinacea: the Australian experience. Annals of Allergy, Asthma & Immunology 2002;88:42-51.
Müller-Jakic 1994
  • Müller-Jakic B, Breu W, Probstle A, Redl K, Greger H, Bauer R. In vitro inhibition of cyclooxygenase and 5-lipoxygenase by alkamides from Echinacea and Achillea species. Planta Medica 1994;60:37-40.
Qiang 2013
  • Qiang Z, Hauck C, McCoy JA, Widrlechner MP, Reddy MB, Murphy PA, et al. Echinacea sanguinea and Echinacea pallida extracts stimulate glucuronidation and basolateral transfer of bauer alkamides 8 and 10 and ketone 24 and inhibit P-glycoprotein transporter in caco-2 cells. Planta Medica 2013;79(3-4):266-74.
Ramasahayam 2011
  • Ramasahayam S, Baraka HN, Abdel Bar FM, Abuasal BS, Widrlechner MP, Sayed KA, et al. Effects of chemically characterized fractions from aerial parts of Echinacea purpurea and Echinacea angustofolia on myelopoiesis in rats. Planta Medica 2011;77(17):1883-9.
RevMan 2012
  • The Nordic Cochrane Centre, The Cochrane Collaboration. Review Manager (RevMan). 5.2. Copenhagen: The Nordic Cochrane Centre, The Cochrane Collaboration, 2012.
Ritchie 2011
Sadigh-Eteghad 2011
  • Sadigh-Eteghad S, Khayat-Nuri H, Abadi N, Ghavami S, Golabi M, Shanebandi D. Synergetic effects of oral administration of levamisole and Echinacea purpurea on immune response in Wistar rat. Research in Veterinary Science 2011;91(1):82-5.
Schoop 2006b
Shah 2007
  • Shah SA, Sander S, White CM, Rinaldi M, Coleman CI. Evaluation of echinacea for the prevention and treatment of the common cold: a meta-analysis. Lancet Infectious Diseases 2007;7:473-80.
Sharma 2006
  • Sharma M, Anderson SA, Schoop R, Hudson JB. Introduction of multiple pro-inflammatory cytokines by respiratory viruses and reversal by standardized Echinacea, a potent antiviral herbal extract. Antiviral Research 2006;83(2):165-70.
Singh 2013a
Singh 2013b
Timmer 2009
  • Timmer A, Günther J, Rücker G, Motschall E, Antes G, Kern WV. Pelargonium sidoides extract for acute respiratory tract infections. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2009, Issue 3. [DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD006323.pub2]
Uluisik 2012
  • Uluisik D, Keskin E. Effects of ginseng and echinacea on cytokine mRNA expression in rats. Scientific World Journal 2012;942025:1-6.
Woelkart 2005a
Woelkart 2005b
Woelkart 2006
  • Woelkart K, Marth E, Suter A, Schoop R, Raggam RB, Koidl C, et al. Bioavailability and pharmacokinetics of Echinacea purpurea preparations and their interaction with the immune system. International Journal of Clinical Pharmacology and Therapeutics 2006;44(9):401-8.
Woelkart 2007
Woelkart 2008
  • Woelkart K, Dittrich P, Beubler E, Pinl F, Schoop R, Suter A, et al. Pharmacokinetics of the main alkamides after administration of three different Echinacea purpurea preparations in humans. Planta Medica 2008;74(6):651-6.
Yamada 2011
  • Yamada K, Hung P, Park TK, Park PJ, Lim BO. A comparison of the immunostimulatory effects of the medical herbs Echinacea, Ashwagandha and Brahmi. Journal of Ethnopharmacology 2011;137(1):231-5.
Yu 2013
  • Yu D, Yuan Y, Jiang L, Tai Y, Yang X, Hu F, et al. Anti-inflammatory effects of essential oil in Echinacea purpurea L. Pakistan Journal of Pharmaceutical Sciences 2013;26(2):403-8.
Zhai 2007
Zhang 2010
  • Zhang X, Wu T, Zhang J, Yan Q, Xie L, Liu GJ. Chinese medicinal herbs for the common cold. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2010, Issue 10. [DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD004782.pub2]

References to other published versions of this review

  1. Top of page
  2. AbstractRésumé scientifique
  3. Background
  4. Objectives
  5. Methods
  6. Results
  7. Discussion
  8. Authors' conclusions
  9. Acknowledgements
  10. Data and analyses
  11. Appendices
  12. Feedback
  13. What's new
  14. History
  15. Contributions of authors
  16. Declarations of interest
  17. Sources of support
  18. Differences between protocol and review
  19. Characteristics of studies
  20. References to studies included in this review
  21. References to studies excluded from this review
  22. References to studies awaiting assessment
  23. Additional references
  24. References to other published versions of this review
Linde 2006
Linde 2008
  • Linde K, Barrett B, Bauer R, Melchart D, Wölkart K. Echinacea for preventing and treating the common cold. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2008, Issue 3. [DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD000530.pub2]
Melchart 1999
  • Melchart D, Linde K, Fischer P, Kaesmayr J. Echinacea for preventing and treating the common cold. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 1999, Issue 1. [DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD000530.pub2]