SCIENTIFIC HUB

Follow the evidence.

SCIENTIFIC LITERATURE · MED

Neurological Applications of Celery (<i>Apium graveolens</i>): A Scoping Review.

Molecules · 2023-08-02

DOI: 10.3390/molecules28155824PMID: 37570794

Open accessScoping Review; review-article; Journal ArticleOriginal source ↗

Research overview

The text below is the source article’s original abstract under a verified reuse license. cc by

Apium graveolens is an indigenous plant in the family Apiaceae, or Umbelliferae, that contains many active compounds. It has been used traditionally to treat arthritic conditions, gout, and urinary infections. The authors conducted a scoping review to assess the quality of available evidence on the overall effects of celery when treating neurological disorders. A systematic search was performed using predetermined keywords in selected electronic databases. The 26 articles included upon screening consisted of 19 in vivo studies, 1 published clinical trial, 4 in vitro studies and 2 studies comprising both in vivo and in vitro methods. A. graveolens and its bioactive phytoconstituent, 3-n-butylphthalide (NBP), have demonstrated their effect on neurological disorders such as Alzheimer's disease, Parkinson's disease, stroke-related neurological complications, depression, diabetes-related neurological complications, and epilepsy. The safety findings were minimal, showing that NBP is safe for up to 18 weeks at 15 mg/kg in animal studies, while there were adverse effects (7%) reported when consuming NBP for 24 weeks at 600 mg daily in human trials. In conclusion, the safety of A. graveolens extract and NBP can be further investigated clinically on different neurological disorders based on their potential role in different targeted pathways.

Scientific assessment

01

Research question

Assess the question within the original study’s scope.

02

Methods & sample

Check the source article for study design and sample details.

03

Key findings

An editorially approved findings summary is not yet published for this record.

04

Limitations

Generalizability, bias and clinical meaning require separate assessment.

Methods, samples and clinical conclusions are not inferred from bibliographic metadata.