↓ Skip to main content

Ganoderma lucidum (Reishi mushroom) for cancer treatment

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, April 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (95th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (79th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
3 blogs
twitter
36 tweeters
facebook
11 Facebook pages
wikipedia
2 Wikipedia pages
video
2 video uploaders

Citations

dimensions_citation
27 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
238 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Ganoderma lucidum (Reishi mushroom) for cancer treatment
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, April 2016
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd007731.pub3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Xingzhong Jin, Julieta Ruiz Beguerie, Daniel Man-yuen Sze, Godfrey CF Chan

Abstract

Ganoderma lucidum is a natural medicine that is widely used and recommended by Asian physicians and naturopaths for its supporting effects on immune system. Laboratory research and a handful of preclinical trials have suggested that G. lucidum carries promising anticancer and immunomodulatory properties. The popularity of taking G. lucidum as an alternative medicine has been increasing in cancer patients. However, there is no systematic review that has been conducted to evaluate the actual benefits of G. lucidum in cancer treatment. To evaluate the clinical effects of G. lucidum on long-term survival, tumour response, host immune functions and quality of life in cancer patients, as well as adverse events associated with its use. We searched an extensive set of databases including the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE, NIH, AMED, CBM, CNKI, CMCC and VIP Information/Chinese Scientific Journals Database was searched for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in October 2011. Other strategies used were scanning the references of articles retrieved, handsearching of the International Journal of Medicinal Mushrooms and contact with herbal medicine experts and manufacturers of G. lucidum. For this update we updated the searches in February 2016. To be eligible for being included in this review, studies had to be RCTs comparing the efficacy of G. lucidum medications to active or placebo control in patients with cancer that had been diagnosed by pathology. All types and stages of cancer were eligible for inclusion. Trials were not restricted on the basis of language. Five RCTs met the inclusion criteria and were included in this review. Two independent review authors assessed the methodological quality of individual trials. Common primary outcomes were tumour response evaluated according to the World Health Organization (WHO) criteria, immune function parameters such as natural killer (NK)-cell activity and T-lymphocyte co-receptor subsets, and quality of life measured by the Karnofsky scale score. No trial had recorded long-term survival rates. Associated adverse events were reported in one study. A meta-analysis was performed to pool available data from the primary trials. Results were gauged using relative risks (RR) and standard mean differences (SMD) for dichotomous and continuous data respectively, with a 95% confidence interval (CI). The methodological quality of primary studies was generally unsatisfying and the results were reported inadequately in many aspects. Additional information was not available from primary trialists. The meta-analysis results showed that patients who had been given G. lucidum alongside with chemo/radiotherapy were more likely to respond positively compared to chemo/radiotherapy alone (RR 1.50; 95% CI 0.90 to 2.51, P = 0.02). G. lucidum treatment alone did not demonstrate the same regression rate as that seen in combined therapy. The results for host immune function indicators suggested that G. lucidum simultaneously increases the percentage of CD3, CD4 and CD8 by 3.91% (95% CI 1.92% to 5.90%, P < 0.01), 3.05% (95% CI 1.00% to 5.11%, P < 0.01) and 2.02% (95% CI 0.21% to 3.84%, P = 0.03), respectively. In addition, leukocyte, NK-cell activity and CD4/CD8 ratio were marginally elevated. Four studies showed that patients in the G. lucidum group had relatively improved quality of life in comparison to controls. One study recorded minimal side effects, including nausea and insomnia. No significant haematological or hepatological toxicity was reported. Our review did not find sufficient evidence to justify the use of G. lucidum as a first-line treatment for cancer. It remains uncertain whether G. lucidum helps prolong long-term cancer survival. However, G. lucidum could be administered as an alternative adjunct to conventional treatment in consideration of its potential of enhancing tumour response and stimulating host immunity. G. lucidum was generally well tolerated by most participants with only a scattered number of minor adverse events. No major toxicity was observed across the studies. Although there were few reports of harmful effect of G. lucidum, the use of its extract should be judicious, especially after thorough consideration of cost-benefit and patient preference. Future studies should put emphasis on the improvement in methodological quality and further clinical research on the effect of G. lucidum on cancer long-term survival are needed. An update to this review will be performed every two years.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 36 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 238 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 1 <1%
Germany 1 <1%
South Africa 1 <1%
Unknown 235 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 65 27%
Student > Bachelor 31 13%
Researcher 26 11%
Student > Postgraduate 16 7%
Student > Ph. D. Student 15 6%
Other 57 24%
Unknown 28 12%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 68 29%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 33 14%
Nursing and Health Professions 25 11%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 22 9%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 11 5%
Other 43 18%
Unknown 36 15%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 46. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 05 February 2020.
All research outputs
#423,490
of 14,460,564 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#1,151
of 10,979 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#12,770
of 264,022 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#38
of 182 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 14,460,564 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 97th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 10,979 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 21.9. This one has done well, scoring higher than 89% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 264,022 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 95% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 182 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 79% of its contemporaries.