Skip to main content

Primary Research · 2014

An alternative treatment for anxiety: a systematic review of human trial results reported for the Ayurvedic herb ashwagandha

Pratte et al. · Journal of Alternative and Complementary Medicine, 2014

Key finding

Systematic review across 5 RCTs. Ashwagandha outperformed placebo for anxiety measures.

OBJECTIVE: To assess existing reported human trials of Withania somnifera (WS; common name, ashwagandha) for the treatment of anxiety. DESIGN: Systematic review of the literature, with searches conducted in PubMed, SCOPUS, CINAHL, and Google Scholar by a medical librarian. Additionally, the reference lists of studies identified in these databases were searched by a research assistant, and queries were conducted in the AYUSH Research Portal. Search terms included "ashwagandha," "Withania somnifera," and terms related to anxiety and stress. Inclusion criteria were human randomized controlled trials with a treatment arm that included WS as a remedy for anxiety or stress. The study team members applied inclusion criteria while screening the records by abstract review. INTERVENTION: Treatment with any regimen of WS. OUTCOME MEASURES: Number and results of studies identified in the review. RESULTS: Sixty-two abstracts were screened; five human trials met inclusion criteria. Three studies compared several dosage levels of WS extract with placebos using versions of the Hamilton Anxiety Scale, with two demonstrating significant benefit of WS versus placebo, and the third demonstrating beneficial effects that approached but did not achieve significance (p=0.05). A fourth study compared naturopathic care with WS versus psychotherapy by using Beck Anxiety Inventory (BAI) scores as an outcome; BAI scores decreased by 56.5% in the WS group and decreased 30.5% for psychotherapy (p<0.0001). A fifth study measured changes in Perceived Stress Scale (PSS) scores in WS group versus placebo; there was a 44.0% reduction in PSS scores in the WS group and a 5.5% reduction in the placebo group (p<0.0001). All studies exhibited unclear or high risk of bias, and heterogenous design and reporting prevented the possibility of meta-analysis. CONCLUSIONS: All five studies concluded that WS intervention resulted in greater score improvements (significantly in most cases) than placebo in outcomes on anxiety or stress scales. Current evidence should be received with caution because of an assortment of study methods and cases of potential bias.

Abstract sourced from PubMed, a database of the U.S. National Library of Medicine. Displayed in the authors’ own words for context; our critique is in the sections below.

Read the full paper

Cited in 2 guides

How to read a study like this

The same questions worth asking about any research paper, not just this one. Worth a minute even if you trust the grade.

Who was studied, and do you resemble them?

Supplement effects often depend on baseline status. Vitamin D helps people who are deficient; iron helps people who are anemic. A result in people unlike you may not apply to you.

What was measured, and does it matter in daily life?

A study that shows a blood marker moved isn't the same as a study that shows people felt or functioned better. Ask what the outcome means in practice.

How large was the effect — not just whether it was significant.

'Statistically significant' only means the effect is unlikely to be zero. It doesn't tell you the effect is large enough to notice. Look for effect sizes, not just p-values.

Who paid for the trial, and what did they stand to gain?

Industry-funded trials are several times more likely to report positive results than independent ones. It's not usually fraud — it's subtle design and reporting choices. Weight accordingly.

Has anyone else replicated this?

Single positive trials are hypotheses. Replication by independent groups is what turns a hypothesis into reliable evidence. If the only positive trial is the one you're reading, wait.

Does the dose in the trial match what's being sold?

Supplement marketing routinely cites trials that used 5–10× the dose in the product. If the effective dose was 2 g/day and the capsule has 200 mg, expect roughly no effect.

About this page

Formulate maintains a registry of clinical studies cited across its guides and evidence grades. This page links the study metadata to the content that cites it — one canonical entry per landmark study.

The full citation chain is public so readers can verify claims without hunting through individual guide pages. Browse all cited studies →

Note: Study summaries on this page are editorial interpretations of the research. Always consult the primary source before drawing clinical conclusions.