In Vitro comparison of herbal and conventional antifungals against Candida strains in Oral candidiasis: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
Source: PubMed, NCBI / U.S. National Library of Medicine
This study aimed to systematically review and meta-analyze the in vitro antifungal activity of herbal and conventional antifungals against Candida strains. In vitro studies were identified through PubMed, Embase, Scopus, and Web of Science up until May 2026. This review is registered with Prospero (CRD420251128404). Eligibility was determined using the Population, Intervention, Comparison, and Outcome (PICO) framework, with specific inclusion and exclusion criteria focused on in vitro antifungal investigations comparing herbal antifungals with conventional antifungals. The risk of bias was assessed using the modified Quality Assessment Tool for In Vitro Studies (QUIN Tool). A meta-analysis was performed, with the primary outcome measure being the ratio of means (RoM). The systematic review included twenty-five articles. Most studies showed different results in inhibition zones or minimum inhibitory concentrations between herbal and conventional agents. The meta-analysis indicates that certain herbal antifungals are equally effective as or more effective than conventional antifungals against Candida dubliniensis, Candida lusitaniae, and Candida tropicalis. While the efficacy of herbal antifungals for Candida albicans and Candida glabrata was modest, Piper betle L. demonstrated significant inhibitory potential. In contrast, conventional antifungals outperformed herbal antifungals against Candida krusei and Candida parapsilosis. This systematic review and meta-analysis highlight
Abstract
This study aimed to systematically review and meta-analyze the in vitro antifungal activity of herbal and conventional antifungals against Candida strains. In vitro studies were identified through PubMed, Embase, Scopus, and Web of Science up until May 2026. This review is registered with Prospero (CRD420251128404). Eligibility was determined using the Population, Intervention, Comparison, and Outcome (PICO) framework, with specific inclusion and exclusion criteria focused on in vitro antifungal investigations comparing herbal antifungals with conventional antifungals. The risk of bias was assessed using the modified Quality Assessment Tool for In Vitro Studies (QUIN Tool). A meta-analysis was performed, with the primary outcome measure being the ratio of means (RoM). The systematic review included twenty-five articles. Most studies showed different results in inhibition zones or minimum inhibitory concentrations between herbal and conventional agents. The meta-analysis indicates that certain herbal antifungals are equally effective as or more effective than conventional antifungals against Candida dubliniensis, Candida lusitaniae, and Candida tropicalis. While the efficacy of herbal antifungals for Candida albicans and Candida glabrata was modest, Piper betle L. demonstrated significant inhibitory potential. In contrast, conventional antifungals outperformed herbal antifungals against Candida krusei and Candida parapsilosis. This systematic review and meta-analysis highlight herbal medicine as a potential antifungal therapy for oral candidiasis, emphasizing the need for new strategies due to resistance to conventional antifungals.