Tier 4 — mechanistic

Molecular and physiological actions of quercetin: need for clinical trials to assess its benefits in human disease

Sarah L Miles, Margaret McFarland, Richard M Niles
Nutrition reviews 2014 72(11):720

Bibliography

PubMed
PMID 25323953
DOI
10.1111/nure.12152
Funding
Funding was not specified in the indexed record or the disclosure metadata available for this entry.
Competing interests
A competing-interest declaration was not available in the indexed record or the disclosure metadata used for this entry.

Study snapshot

DesignNarrative review of molecular actions and clinical translation
ModelNarrative or mixed evidence review
SampleMechanistic, animal, and clinical reports; no new trial cohort
InterventionQuercetin across diverse models and conditions
DurationLiterature available at publication
EndpointsSource-specific outcomes described in the key findings

What the study showed, in plain terms

Published in 2014, this source examined evidence reviews and human mechanisms. Its evidence base was Mechanistic, animal, and clinical reports; no new trial cohort. It evaluated Quercetin across diverse models and conditions across Literature available at publication.

The review summarizes multiple proposed actions while emphasizing the need for better human trials.

Multiple molecular targets are hypotheses for clinical testing, not proof that oral quercetin prevents or treats all the diseases discussed.

Continue with Quercetin Data Center

For topic-level interpretation, read Quercetin Benefits: What Human Studies Actually Show. This is a related guide; the citation panel separately identifies articles that directly cite this paper.

Key findings

  • The review summarizes multiple proposed actions while emphasizing the need for better human trials.
  • The recorded outcome domains were Source-specific outcomes described in the key findings.

What this study can and cannot tell us

  • Multiple molecular targets are hypotheses for clinical testing, not proof that oral quercetin prevents or treats all the diseases discussed.
  • The conclusions inherit the limitations of the underlying studies. A narrative interpretation or guideline recommendation is not a new randomized treatment comparison.
  • Source basis: Source check: PubMed abstract and indexed metadata; full methods were not independently confirmed for this entry. Missing method details, funding information or participant denominators are not inferred.

Editorial review

Reviewed by the Biohack Blueprint research team

Last verified

Dr. Khaled Mahmoud, MBBChCritical Care Medicine, Longevity Science & Editorial Direction Dr. Amr Yasser, PhDCardiometabolic, Musculoskeletal, Gut & Bioavailability Dr. Abdulla Mostafa, PhDCellular Senescence, Neurological, Mitochondrial & Brain-Ageing Biology