Skip to main content

Primary Research · 2008

Potential interaction of Ginkgo biloba leaf with antiplatelet or anticoagulant drugs: what is the evidence?

Bone · Mol Nutr Food Res, 2008

Key finding

Reviews multiple controlled studies showing ginkgo does NOT significantly impact hemostasis or aspirin/warfarin safety. Notes EGb 761 (standardized extract) is not generally implicated in case reports. Quality of published case reports is low. Mechanism (ginkgolide B as PAF antagonist) is real but clinically modest.

Some writers hold the view that the combination of Ginkgo biloba with anticoagulant or antiplatelet drugs represents a serious health risk. Such concerns are largely based on the assumption that Ginkgo has clinically relevant antiplatelet activity, as well as accounts of bleeding episodes associated with Ginkgo consumption. To investigate whether these bleeding episodes have a pharmacodynamic, idiosyncratic or coincidental basis, a review of controlled clinical studies and case reports was undertaken. Results from controlled studies consistently indicate that Ginkgo does not significantly impact haemostasis nor adversely affect the safety of coadministered aspirin or warfarin. Most of these studies were undertaken using EGb 761, a well-defined extract of Ginkgo biloba. In contrast, EGb 761 has not generally been implicated in the case reports. In general, the quality of these case reports is low. Nevertheless, the possibility of an idiosyncratic bleeding event due to Ginkgo use cannot be excluded on the basis of the available information. However, there is scant information from case reports or controlled trials to support the suggestion that Ginkgo potentiates the effects of anticoagulant or antiplatelet drugs. Such high-level safety concerns for this herb are deemed to be unsupported by the currently available evidence.

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

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.