Introduction {#Sec1}
============

Cognition can be defined as the group of mental processes that lead to knowledge through thought, experience, and the senses. Cognitive function consists of various domains including attention and concentration, executive function, information processing speed, language, visuospatial skill, working memory, verbal memory, and visual memory^[@CR1]^. Diseases, drugs, chemicals, genetics, and aging can all cause declines in cognitive ability leading to cognitive impairment. Cognitive impairment may result in dementia or Alzheimer's disease.

Acetylcholinesterase inhibitors (AChEIs) have been recommended as a first-line treatment for Alzheimer's disease. However, AChEIs are also associated with various adverse events. To avoid these, herbal medicines such as Ginkgo (*Gingko biloba* L.)*, Curcuma longa* L.*, Melissa officinalis* L. and *Bacopa monnieri* L. Wettst have been increasingly used as alternatives to prevent or treat cognitive impairment^[@CR2]--[@CR5]^.

*Centella asiatica* (L.) Urban., (family Apiaceae), commonly known as asiatic pennywort or gotu kola, is a plant that has been used as an AChEI alternative. It is a perennial, herbaceous creeper with kidney shaped leaves commonly found and cultivated in Asian countries^[@CR6],\ [@CR7]^. It has been used since ancient times in Ayurvedic traditions under the name of mandukaparni^[@CR6]--[@CR8]^. This plant functions as an herb, spice, vegetable, and juice as well as in nutraceutical and cosmetic products. *C. asiatica* has been added to the Thailand National List of Essential Medicines for its antipyretic and wound healing properties^[@CR9]^. It has also been selected as one of the five medicinal plants to be developed as a "champion herbal product" to generate income for the country^[@CR10]^.

*C. asiatica* contains several active ingredients with the most important group being pentacyclic triterpenes, which includes asiaticoside, madecassoside, asiatic acid, and madecassic acid^[@CR8]^. *C. asiatica* and its pentacyclic triterpenes are commonly used for their antipyretic, wound healing, anti-wrinkle, and anti-inflammation effects^[@CR11]^. Important indications for *C. asiatica* in Ayurveda include its use for cognitive properties as a brain tonic, in the treatment of mental disorders, and as a memory-enhancing agent^[@CR6],\ [@CR7],\ [@CR12]^. *C. asiatica* was shown to improve neuronal morphology and learning performance and enhance memory retention in animal models^[@CR13],\ [@CR14]^. Several mechanisms of action of *C. asiatica* were demonstrated for enhancing cognitive function, such as the inhibition of acetylcholinesterase activity, reduction of phospholipase A~2~ (PLA~2~) activity, protection against ß-amyloid formation, and protection from brain damage^[@CR15]--[@CR17]^. Furthermore, *C. asiatica* has also shown anti-stress, antidepressant, anxiolytic and anti-seizure properties in pre-clinical studies^[@CR18]--[@CR20]^. In animal models, asiaticoside and asiatic acid showed neuroprotective, antidepressive, and anxiolytic effects^[@CR20]--[@CR23]^. Learning and memory improvements facilitated by asiatic acid have been observed in passive and active avoidance tests^[@CR24]^. From these data and its use in traditional medicine, *C. asiatica* is selected as one of the active ingredients in nutraceutical products for improving brain function.

A number of randomized controlled studies have investigated the clinical effect of *C. asiatica* on cognitive function^[@CR25],\ [@CR26]^. However, no study has summarized the overall evidence of *C. asiatica* on cognitive function and its related properties. Therefore, this study aims to systematically review all available evidence to determine the efficacy and safety of *C. asiatica* on cognitive function and its related properties including effects on mood and quality of life (QoL).

Results {#Sec2}
=======

Study selection {#Sec3}
---------------

A total of 2,419 articles were identified from the database searches, and five articles were added based on our review of the reference lists. Of the articles, 693 were excluded because of duplication. A total of 1,785 titles and abstracts were screened. Of the screened titles and abstracts, 20 full-text articles were reviewed, of which only 11 articles were included in the systematic review. The flow of included studies is depicted in Fig. [1](#Fig1){ref-type="fig"}.Figure 1Flow of included studies.

Study characteristics {#Sec4}
---------------------

Of the 11 included studies, five studies (45%) compared *C. asiatica* alone to placebo, and six studies (54%) compared a combination of *C. asiatica* versus other herbs. For combination products, three of the six studies (50%) used mix herbs as the active ingredients, two of the six studies (33%) used *Gingko biloba* as the major compound, and one study used a combination of vitamins and herbs (Table [1](#Tab1){ref-type="table"}). Only one study (9%) did not report the Latin binomial nomenclature of the herbal ingredients^[@CR27]^. Standardization methods were reported in three studies (27%)^[@CR26],\ [@CR28],\ [@CR29]^ but only two studies quantitatively described the standardization^[@CR26],\ [@CR29]^. Nine studies (81%) were conducted using double-blind parallel designs, one used an open-labeled parallel design, and one used a cross-over design. Most studies (91%) were conducted in healthy volunteers, while one study was conducted in children with attention deficit hyperactive disorder. Other information (herbal supplement type, dosage form, plant preparation, dose of *C. asiatica*, standardization method, study characteristics, intervention and patient characteristics) is summarized in Table [1](#Tab1){ref-type="table"}.Table 1Characteristics of *Centella asiatica* (L.) Urb. supplements and included studies.AuthorHerbal supplement typeDosage formReport Latin name (Raw material authentication)Plant part*C. asiatica* Preparation (solvent for extraction)StandardizationDose of *C. asiatica* per day (mg)Standard compound content per day (mg)Standard PT^\#^ content per day (mg)Pharmacy (P)/Manufacturer (M) productionBradwejn, 2000^[@CR32]^SingleMixtureYes (No)NRPowderNR12,000N/AN/ANRDev, 2009^[@CR25]^SingleCapsuleYes (No)NRPowderNR5,000--8,000N/AN/AYes (M)Mato, 2011^[@CR28]^SingleCapsuleYes (Yes)AerialExtract (water)Standardized using TPC, AS, AA250 500 750TPC = 7.48, AS = 0.27, AA = 12.22 TPC = 14.19, AS = 0.55, AA = 24.45 TPC = 22.43, AS = 0.82, AA = 36.6722.49 25.00 37.49Yes (P)Rao, 1977^[@CR35]^SingleTabletYes (No)NRPowderNR500N/AN/ANRWattanathorn, 2008^[@CR26]^SingleCapsuleYes (Yes)AerialExtract (water)Standardized using TPC, AS, AA250 500 750TPC = 7.48, AS = 0.27, AA = 12.22 TPC = 14.19, AS = 0.55, AA = 24.45 TPC = 22.43, AS = 0.82, AA = 36.6722.49 25.00 37.49Yes (P)Carlson, 2007^[@CR33]^Combination (*G. biloba* ^a^)Softgel capsuleYes (No)NRNRNR204N/AN/AYes (M)Harris, 2011^[@CR27]^Combination (Vitamins^a^)TabletNo (No)NRExtract (NR)NRNRN/AN/AYes (M)Katz, 2011^[@CR30]^Combination (Mix herb^a^)MixtureYes (Yes)NRExtract (NR)Standardized By Thin layer chromatographyNRN/AN/AYes (P)Lewis, 2014^[@CR34]^Combination (*G. biloba* ^a^)Capsule plus tabletYes (No)LeafNRNR40N/AN/AYes (M)Sarokte, 2013^[@CR29]^Combination (Mix herb^a^)PowderYes (Yes)NRPowderNR1,000N/AN/ANRUdani, 2013^[@CR31]^Combination (Mix herb^a^)CapsuleYes (No)NRExtract (NR)NR100N/AN/AYes (M)**AuthorRCTs designParticipantsInclusion ageGroupNo. ParticipantM:FMean ageIntake DurationInterval Assessed**Bradwejn, 2000^[@CR32]^DB, parallelHealthy18--45*C. asiatica* 12 g single oral Placebo20 2021:19NRsingle oral0, 30, 60, 90 minDev, 2009^[@CR25]^DB, parallelHealthy35--50*C. asiatica* 3--4 g OD (50 mg/Kg) male *C. asiatica* 3--4 g OD (50 mg/Kg) female Placebo male Placebo female10 11 9 1010:0 0:11 9:0 0:1043.3 ± 3.6 44.2 ± 5.9 40.1 ± 4.6 44.2 ± 4.860 days0, 40, 60, 90 daysMato, 2011^[@CR28]^DB, parallelHealthy55--80*C. asiatica* extract 250 mg OD *C. asiatica* extract 500 mg OD *C. asiatica* extract 750 mg OD Placebo20 20 20 201:19 1:19 1:19 1:1964.6 ± 4.5 64.2 ± 5.1 66.8 ± 4.7 65.7 ± 4.890 days0, 30, 60, 90, 120 daysRao, 1977^[@CR35]^DB, parallelMentally retarded children7--18*C. asiatica* 500 mg OD Placebo15 1223:713.3180 days0, 90, 180 daysWattanathorn, 2008^[@CR26]^DB, parallelHealthyElderly*C. asiatica* extract 250 mg OD *C. asiatica* extract 500 mg OD *C. asiatica* extract 750 mg OD Placebo7 7 7 71:6 1:6 1:6 1:667.3 ± 1.4 62.0 ± 4.3 64.8 ± 2.7 65.9 ± 5.160 days0, 60 min, 30, 60 daysCarlson, 2007^[@CR33]^DB, parallelHealthy65--85*Ginkgo biloba* containing supplement (*C. asiatica* 68 mg/day)\* Placebo42 3621:21 21:1573.1 ± 4.8 72.1 ± 6.0120 days0, 120 daysHarris, 2011^[@CR27]^DB, parallelHealthy man50--69Multivitamin + mineral + herb (*C. asiatica* 10--200 mg/day)\* Placebo25 2525:0 25:062.1 ± 3.8 62.9 ± 7.056 day0, 56 daysKatz, 2011^[@CR30]^DB, parallelADHD children6--12Compound herbal preparation (*C. asiatica* extract included)\* Placebo73 1955:18 15:49.8 ± 1.6 9.4 ± 2.0120 days0, 120 daysLewis, 2014^[@CR34]^DB, parallelHealthy60+Ginkgo Synergy^®^ 2 cap\* + Choline 4 tab (*C. asiatica* included) OPC Synergy^®^2 cap\* + Catalyn^®^ 4 tab\* Placebo33 31 338:24 7:24 12:2167.6 ± 6.3 68.5 ± 6.7 70.3 ± 8.390 day0, 90, 180 daysSarokte, 2013^[@CR29]^Open label, parallelHealthy10--16MedhyaRasaya 4 g/day (*C. asiatica* 1 g/day) with milk Yogic practices Control (no intervention)30 30 3013:17 18:12 15:15NR NR NR90 day0, 90 dayUdani, 2013^[@CR31]^DB, crossoverHealthy35--65SuperUlam\* (*C. asiatica* extract 100 mg) single oral Placebo2010:1047.7single oral0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 hoursNR = Not report, N/A = Not applicable, a = major component (as mentioned in article). UA = Ursolic acid, AS = Asiaticoside, AA = Asiatic acid, TPC = Total phenolic content. \#PT = Pentacyclic triterpenes are consist of asiaticoside, asiatic acid and ursolic acid. DB = double blind, OD = once daily, ADHD = Attention deficit hyperactive disorder, \*Commercial product, RCTs = Randomized controlled trials. NR = not report, M:F = Male:Female.

Quality of included studies {#Sec5}
---------------------------

Three of the studies (27%)^[@CR29]--[@CR31]^ had a high risk of bias, seven studies (64%) were unclear^[@CR25],\ [@CR27],\ [@CR28],\ [@CR32]--[@CR35]^, and one study (9%) had a low risk of bias^[@CR26]^. Although, all studies stated that they were randomized controlled trials, four of the trials (36%) were found to have unclear risk of bias for "sequence generation" because there was no description of the sequence generation methods. Most studies (72.7%) did not describe the "allocation concealment" method. In the bias domain of "blinding", one study was an open-label study which was categorized as having a high risk of bias. All double-blind studies included had low risk. Furthermore, incomplete outcome data, selective outcome reporting, other sources of bias risk, and JADAD scores for each study are presented in Table [2](#Tab2){ref-type="table"}.Table 2Methodological quality assessment of the included studies.AuthorRisk of bias domainJADAD ScoreSequence generationAllocation concealmentBlindingIncomplete outcome dataSelective outcome reportingOther sources of biasOverall risk of biasInvestigatorParticipants*C. asiatica* aloneBradwejn, 2000^[@CR32]^UULLLLLU3Dev, 2009^[@CR25]^LULLLLLU5Mato, 2011^[@CR28]^LULLLLLU5Rao, 1977^[@CR35]^UULLLLLU4Wattanathorn, 2008^[@CR26]^LLLLLLLL5Combination product contained with *C. asiatica*Carlson, 2007^[@CR33]^UULLLLUU3Harris, 2011^[@CR27]^UULLLLLU4Katz, 2010^[@CR30]^LLLLULHH4Lewis, 2014^[@CR34]^LULLLLUU5Sarokte, 2013^[@CR29]^LUHHLLLH1Udani, 2013^[@CR31]^LLLLLLHH5L = Low risk, U = Unclear, H = High risk.

Effects of *C. asiatica* in cognitive function {#Sec6}
----------------------------------------------

Of the included studies, 60 cognitive function tests were described, but only 27 of the tests had sufficient data for a meta-analysis. The 27 cognitive function tests were each categorized into specific cognitive domains for the purpose of evaluating the cognitive improvement effect of *C. asiatica* ^[@CR1]^. The domains included 1) overall cognitive status, 2) attention and concentration, 3) executive function, 4) working memory, 5) information processing speed, 6) language, 7) verbal memory, 8) visuospatial skill, and 9) visual memory (Table [3](#Tab3){ref-type="table"}). The meta-analysis indicated no significant difference between *C. asiatica* and comparators (placebo) on any cognitive function domain \[Overall cognitive status SMD: 0.49 (95%CI; −0.49 to 1.48), *I* ^2^ = 87.9%: Attention and concentration (score) SMD: 0.37 (95%CI; −0.48 to 1.22), *I* ^2^ = 77.0%: Attention and concentration (time) SMD: 0.01 (95%CI; −0.66 to 0.68), *I* ^2^ = 0.0%: Exclusive function (score) SMD: 0.17 (95%CI; −0.19 to 0.53*), I* ^2^ = 0.0%: Information processing (score) SMD: 0.51 (95%CI; −0.41 to 1.44), *I* ^2^ = 77.7%: Information processing (time) SMD: −0.23 (95%CI; −1.02 to 0.56), *I* ^2^ = 24.2%: Language SMD: 0.28 (95%CI; −0.62 to 1.17*), I* ^2^ = 83.0%: Visuospatial skill SMD: 0.61 (95%CI; −0.18 to 0.61), *I* ^2^ = 0.0%: Working memory (score) SMD: 0.61 (95%CI; −0.25 to 1.48*), I* ^2^ = 76.9%: Working memory (time) SMD: 0.61 (95%CI; −0.59 to 1.80*), I* ^2^ = 69.0%: Verbal memory SMD: 0.14 (95%CI; −0.43 to 0.71), *I* ^2^ = 61.6% and Visual memory SMD: 0.15 (95%CI; −0.28 to 0.58), *I* ^2^ = 22.1%\]. All results are presented in Table [4](#Tab4){ref-type="table"}. However, the findings in some trials indicated that *C. asiatica* alone may improve working memory. Significant positive effects were found on numeric working memory tests (Appendix D) (i.e., decreased working time) after patients received 750 mg (37.49 mg of pentacyclic triterpenes) of *C. asiatica* water extract for 1 hour \[MD: 218.36 (95%CI; 39.73 to 397.0)\]^[@CR26]^. Moreover, the combination products also revealed possible effects on some cognitive function tests (Appendix D) associated with attention and concentration (overall attention test in attention deficit hyperactive disorder children) \[MD: 16.8 (95%CI; 9.82 to 23.78)\]^[@CR30]^, executive function (trail making test B in healthy elderly participant) \[MD: −16.92 (95%CI; −27.14 to −6.70)\]^[@CR33]^ and information processing speed (variability test in attention deficit hyperactive disorder children \[MD: 23.90 (95%CI; 12.80 to 35.00)\])^[@CR30]^.Table 3Cognitive, mood, and quality of life tests included in the meta-analysis.FunctionDomainDomain typeTestIncluded studiesCognitiveOverall cognitive statusOver allMini mental status examination (MMSE) Mini mental status examination (MMSE)Carlson *et al*., 2007; Sarokte *et al*., 2013Intelligence quotient (IQ)Rao *et al*., 1977Over all cognitive functionUdani, 2013Attention and concentrationAccuracy/ScoreDigit vigilant test (accuracy)Wattanathorn *et al*., 2008Sustained attentionUdani, 2013Broad attentionDev *et al*., 2009Over all attentionKatz *et al*., 2010TimeDigit vigilant test (time)Wattanathorn *et al*., 2008React timeUdani, 2013Executive functionAccuracy/ScoreSymbol digit modalitiesCarlson *et al*., 2007Executive processDev *et al*., 2009TimeTrail Making Test B (TMT-B)Lewis *et al*., 2014Cognitive flexibilityUdani, 2013Information processing speedAccuracy/ScoreProcessing speedDev *et al*., 2009VariabilityKatz *et al*., 2010TimeChoice reaction timeWattanathorn *et al*., 2008Processing speedUdani, 2013LanguageOver allControlled Oral Word Association testCarlson *et al*., 2007; Lewis *et al*., 2014Visuospatial skillOver allSpatial memory (accuracy)Wattanathorn *et al*., 2008Judgment of line orientationCarlson *et al*., 2007Visual spatial thinkingDev *et al*., 2009Working memoryAccuracy/ScoreNumeric working memory (accuracy)Wattanathorn *et al*., 2008Working memoryDev *et al*., 2009Short term memory pictureSarokte *et al*., 2013TimeWorking memoryUdani, 2013Numeric working memory (time)Wattanathorn *et al*., 2008Verbal memoryOver allWord recognition (accuracy)Wattanathorn *et al*., 2008Serial recall effect test - wordsSarokte *et al*., 2013List LearningCarlson *et al*., 2007Visual memoryOver allPicture recognition (accuracy)Wattanathorn *et al*., 2008Benton Visual retentionCarlson *et al*., 2007Delayed recallDev, 2009MoodMoodOver allProfile of mood status (POMS) Profile of mood status (POMS) Mood ratingUdani, 2013; Harris *et al*., 2011; Bradwejn *et al*., 2000Mood scaleOver allBond-Lader mood scale Visual analog mood scale (VAMS)Wattanathorn *et al*., 2008; Harris *et al*., 2011Quality of life (QoL)Total QoLOver allSF-36Carlson *et al*., 2007General health questionnairHarris *et al*., 2011PhysicalOver allSF-36 (physical function)Mato *et al*., 2011Total physicalUdani, 2013The same domain was pooled together for meta-analysis. Table 4Result of primary and secondary outcomes.DomainInc. trialNStandardized mean difference \[95% CI\]p-valueHeterogeneity (%*I* ^2^)Pooled studies**Primary outcomesOver all cognitive status**Outcomes at the end of study (All)31530.49 \[−0.49, 1.48\]0.32787.9Rao *et al*., 1977; Carlson *et al*., 2007; Sarokte *et al*., 2013Outcomes at the end of study (DB only)293−0.01 \[−0.52, 0.51\]0.97629.0Rao *et al*., 1977; Carlson *et al*., 2007Outcomes at the end of study (Combination only)21260.56 \[−0.95, 2.08\]0.46593.9Carlson *et al*., 2007; Sarokte *et al*., 2013Outcomes at the end of study (*C. asiatica* only)^\#^1274.30 \[−5.42, 14.02\]0.386---Rao *et al*., 19775 hr after ingestion (Combination only)^\#^120−0.11 \[−6.61, 4.51\]0.711---Udani, 2013**Attention and concentrationAttention (Score**)Outcomes at the end of study31460.37 \[−0.48, 1.22\]0.39577.0Wattanathorn *et al*., 2008; Dev *et al*., 2009; Katz *et al*., 20101 month ingestion (*C. asiatica* only)2540.05 \[−0.49, 0.58\]0.8620.00Wattanathorn *et al*., 2008; Dev *et al*., 20092 month ingestion (*C. asiatica* only)254−0.01 \[−0.55, 0.52\]0.9620.00Wattanathorn *et al*., 2008; Dev *et al*., 2009Outcomes at the end of study (Combinantion only)\*^,\#^19216.8 \[9.82, 23.78\]0.000---Katz *et al*., 20101 hr after ingestion234−0.13 \[−0.81, 0.54\]0.6980.00Wattanathorn *et al*., 2008; Udani, 20131 hr after ingestion (*C. asiatica* only)^\#^114−4.76 \[−34.90, 25.40\]0.757---Wattanathorn *et al*., 20081 hr after ingestion (Combination only)^\#^120−1.25 \[−11.12, 8.62\]0.804---Udani, 2013**Attention (time)**1 hr after ingestion2340.01 \[−0.66, 0.68\]0.9770.00Wattanathorn *et al*., 2008; Udani, 20131 hr after ingestion (*C. asiatica* only)^\#^1146.88 \[−38.74, 52.50\]0.758---Wattanathorn *et al*., 20081 hr after ingestion (Combination only)^\#^120−0.90 \[−9.34, 7.54\]0.834---Udani, 2013**Executive functionExecutive function (Score)**Outcomes at the end of study21180.17 \[−0.19, 0.53\]0.3570.00Carlson *et al*., 2007; Dev *et al*., 2009Outcomes at the end of study (*C. asiatica* only)^\#^14014.43 \[−8.63, 37.49\]0.220---Dev *et al*., 2009Outcomes at the end of study (Combination only)^\#^1780.70 \[−3.03, 4.43\]0.713---Carlson *et al*., 2007**Executive function (Time)**5 hr after ingestion (Combination only)^\#^120−3.25 \[−10.53, 4.03\]0.381---Udani, 2013Outcomes at the end of study (Combination only)\*^,\#^148−16.92 \[−27.14, −6.70\]0.001---Lewis *et al*., 2014**Information processing speedInformation processing (Score)**Outcomes at the end of study21320.51 \[−0.41, 1.44\]0.27777.7Dev *et al*., 2009; Katz *et al*., 2010Outcomes at the end of study (*C. asiatica* only)^\#^1400.49 \[−7.63, 8.61\]0.906---Dev *et al*., 2009Outcomes at the end of study (Combination only)\*^,\#^19223.90 \[12.80, 35.00\]0.000---Katz *et al*., 2010**Information processing (Time)**1 hr after ingestion234−0.23 \[−1.02, 0.56\]0.57224.2Wattanathorn *et al*., 2008; Udani, 20131 hr after ingestion (*C. asiatica* only)^\#^11436.97 \[−134.2, 208.1\]0.672---Wattanathorn *et al*., 20081 hr after ingestion (Combination only)^\#^120−6.25 \[−15.63, 3.13\]0.192---Udani, 2013**Language**Outcomes at the end of study (Combination only)^\#^21260.28 \[−0.62, 1.17\]0.54583.0Carlson *et al*., 2007; Lewis *et al*., 2014**Visuospatial skill**Outcomes at the end of study31320.61 \[−0.18, 0.61\]0.3470.00Carlson *et al*., 2007; Wattanathorn *et al*., 2008; Dev *et al*., 2009Outcomes at the end of study (Healthy, elderly)2920.14 \[−0.27, 0.55\]0.5140.00Carlson *et al*., 2007; Wattanathorn *et al*., 2008Outcomes at the end of study (*C. asiatica* only)2540.30 \[−0.24, 0.84\]0.2790.00Wattanathorn *et al*., 2008; Dev *et al*., 2009**Working memoryWorking memory (Score)**Outcomes at the end of study31140.61 \[−0.25, 1.48\]0.16776.9Wattanathorn *et al*., 2008; Dev *et al*., 2009; Sarokte *et al*., 2013Outcomes at the end of study (*C. asiatica* only)2540.19 \[−0.35, 0.72\]0.4880.0Wattanathorn *et al*., 2008; Dev *et al*., 2009**Working memory (time)**1 hr after ingestion2340.61 \[−0.59, 1.80\]0.31969.0Wattanathorn *et al*., 2008; Udani, 20131 hr after ingestion (*C. asiatica* only)\*114218.36 \[39.73, 397.0\]0.017---Wattanathorn *et al*., 20081 hr after ingestion (Combination only)1200.60 \[−8.51, 9.71\]0.897---Udani, 2013**Verbal memory**Outcomes at the end of study31520.14 \[−0.43, 0.71\]0.63561.6Carlson *et al*., 2007; Wattanathorn *et al*., 2008; Sarokte *et al*., 2013Outcomes at the end of study (Healthy, eldery)292−0.15 \[−0.56, 0.26\]0.4730.00Carlson *et al*., 2007; Wattanathorn 2008Outcomes at the end of study (Combination only)21380.23 \[−0.51, 0.97\]0.54378.8Carlson *et al*., 2007; Sarokte *et al*., 2013Outcomes at the end of study (*C. asiatica* only)114−2.07 \[12.26, 8.12\]0.691---Wattanathorn *et al*., 2008**Visual memory**Outcomes at the end of study31320.15 \[−0.28, 0.58\]0.48722.1Carlson *et al*., 2007; Dev *et al*., 2009; Wattanathorn *et al*., 2008Outcomes at the end of study (*C. asiatica* only)2540.37 \[−0.24, 0.98\]0.23518.8Wattanathorn *et al*., 2008; Dev *et al*., 2009**Secondary outcomesMood (self-report from participants)Bond-Lader mood scale/VAMS**Outcomes at the end of study (Alert)\*2640.71 \[0.01, 1.41\]0.04630.5Wattanathorn *et al*., 2008; Harris *et al*., 2011Outcomes at the end of study (Alert) (*C. asiatica* only)\*^,\#^1149.38 \[1.71, 17.05\]0.017---Wattanathorn *et al*., 2008Outcomes at the end of study (Alert) (Combination only)^\#^1507.20 \[−0.98, 15.38\]0.085---Harris *et al*., 2011Outcomes at the end of study (Content)2640.30 \[−0.19, 0.80\]0.2270.00Wattanathorn *et al*. 2008; Harris *et al*., 2011Outcomes at the end of study (Content) (*C. asiatica* only)^\#^1142.38 \[−2.77, 7.53\]0.365---Wattanathorn *et al*., 2008Outcomes at the end of study (Content) (Combination only)^\#^1503.90 \[−4.57, 12.37\]0.367---Harris *et al*., 2011Outcomes at the end of study (Clam)2640.60 \[−0.30, 1.50\]0.19453.5Wattanathorn *et al*., 2008; Harris *et al*., 2011Outcomes at the end of study (Clam)\* (*C. asiatica* only)^\#^1142.37 \[0.33, 4.41\]0.023---Wattanathorn 2008Outcomes at the end of study (Clam) (Combination only)^\#^1503.60 \[−4.19, 11.39\]0.365---Harris *et al*., 2011**POMS and mood rating (self-report from participants)Tension**1 hr after ingestion259−0.05 \[−0.56, 0.46\]0.8460.00Bradwejn *et al*., 2000; Udani, 20132 hr after ingestion2590.30 \[−0.99, 1.58\]0.65180.8Bradwejn *et al*., 2000; Udani, 2013Outcomes at the end of study (Combination only)^\#^150−1.70 \[−4.62, 1.22\]0.253---Harris *et al*., 2011**Depression**1 hr after ingestion2590.09 \[−1.53, 1.71\]0.91687.8Bradwejn *et al*., 2000; Udani, 20132 hr after ingestion2590.33 \[−1.42, 2.08\]0.71089.0Bradwejn *et al*., 2000; Udani, 2013Outcomes at the end of study (Combination only)^\#^150−1.00 \[−5.05, 3.05\]0.628---Harris *et al*., 2011**Angor**1 hr after ingestion\*259−0.81 \[−1.51, −0.09\]0.02636.6Bradwejn *et al*., 2000; Udani, 20132 hr after ingestion2590.27 \[−0.35, 0.89\]0.38626.4Bradwejn *et al*., 2000; Udani, 2013Outcomes at the end of study (Combination only)^\#^150−2.90 \[−7.29, 1.49\]0.196---Harris *et al*., 2011**Vigor**1 hr after ingestion259−0.25 \[−1.68, 1.19\]0.73785.0Bradwejn *et al*., 2000; Udani, 20132 hr after ingestion259−0.16 \[−1.10, 0.78\]0.73566.5Bradwejn *et al*., 2000; Udani, 2013Outcomes at the end of study (Combination only)^\#^1500.70 \[−2.88, 4.28\]0.701---Harris *et al*., 2011**Fatigue**1 hr after ingestion2590.39 \[−0.42, 1.20\]0.34554.1Bradwejn *et al*., 2000; Udani, 20132 hr after ingestion2590.26 \[−0.53, 1.05\]0.64052.6Bradwejn *et al*., 2000; Udani, 2013Outcomes at the end of study (Combination only)^\#^150−1.30 \[−4.06, 1.46\]0.355---Harris *et al*., 2011**Confusion**1 hr after ingestion259−0.48 \[−1.65, 0.70\]0.42776.6Bradwejn *et al*., 2000; Udani, 20132 hr after ingestion2590.11 \[−0.40, 0.62\]0.6750.00Bradwejn *et al*., 2000; Udani, 2013Outcomes at the end of study (Combination only)^\#^150−0.90 \[−3.26, 1.46\]0.454---Harris *et al*., 2011**Quality of life**Outcomes at the end of study (Physical)2600.21 \[−0.30, 0.72\]0.4170.00Mato *et al*., 2011; Harris *et al*., 2011Outcomes at the end of study (Total)21280.04 \[−0.87, 0.95\]0.93184.4Carlson *et al*., 2007; Harris *et al*., 2011^\*^Significant (p \< 0.05).\#Presented as mean difference (not standardized mean difference).Combination only = Only combination product, *C. asiatica* only = *C. asiatica* alone product.Outcomes at the end of study = Outcomes measured at the longest following up.\*Significant (p \< 0.05), CI = confident interval.\#Presented as mean difference (not standardized mean difference).All = pooled all data, Combination only = Only combination product, *C. asiatica* only = *C. asiatica* alone product, DB = Double blind, Score = Score unit, Time = Time unit, Healthy = Healthy volunteer, Elderly = elderly volunteer.Outcomes at the end of study = Outcomes measured at the longest following up time.

For secondary outcomes, *C. asiatica* could increase self-reported alert scores \[SMD: 0.71 (95%CI; 0.01 to 1.41), *I* ^2^ = 30.5%\]. Furthermore, ingestion of *C*. a*siatica* water extract (750 mg/day) for 2 months showed an increase in self-reported alertness \[MD: 9.38 (95%CI; 1.71 to 17.05)\] and self-reported calmness \[MD: 2.37 (95%CI; 0.33 to 4.41)\]*. C. asiatica* also decreased self-reported anger scores at 1 hour after treatment \[SMD: −0.81 (95%CI; −1.51 to −0.09), *I* ^2^ = 36.6*%*\]. However, no other significant differences for mood or quality of life could be identified. Other findings of all outcomes are presented in Table [4](#Tab4){ref-type="table"}.

Adverse effects {#Sec7}
---------------

Adverse effects or toxicity associated with *C. asiatica* were also evaluated based on the included articles. No adverse effects were reported in any studies looking at *C. asiatica* alone. However, for studies of combination products, four studies reported mild adverse events of *C. asiatica*-containing products. Two studies reported adverse event rates comparable to the placebo rate^[@CR31],\ [@CR34]^, while another two studies reported lower rates of adverse event for *C. asiatica*-containing products^[@CR30],\ [@CR33]^. Common adverse events were gastrointestinal discomfort, flatulence, nausea, headache, decreased appetite, sedation, and rash. Hepatotoxicity, which has been reported in one previous case report^[@CR36]^, was not observed in any of the included RCTs.

Discussion {#Sec8}
==========

This systematic review and meta-analysis provides a comprehensive summary of the effects of *C. asiatica* on cognitive function.

Current evidence does not support the effects of *C. asiatica* alone on overall cognitive function. However, ingestion of *C. asiatica* water extract (750 mg/day) for 1 hour may improve working memory, as shown in the positive effect on the numeric working memory test^[@CR26]^ by a decrease in working time. This finding does not agree with a recent quasi-experimental study which found a statistically significant improvement in the memory domain of patients who had vascular cognitive impairment treated with *C. asiatica* extract (1,000 mg/day) when compared to patients treated with 3 mg/day of folic acid^[@CR37]^. In that study, however, the dose of *C. asiatica* was higher than nine of the eleven trials included in this meta-analysis. Thus, the non-significant differences in overall cognitive function between *C. asiatica* and its comparators observed in this review might be due to the dosages used in the included studies. In traditional use and experimental evidence^[@CR38]^, at least 3 grams of *C. asiatica* needs to be used to improve cognitive function. However, only two included studies^[@CR29],\ [@CR32]^ used doses greater than 3 g of *C. asiatica* per day, while the rest used lower doses.

The combination of *C. asiatica* with other herbs also showed non-significant improvements in overall cognitive function. However, the combination products in other studies have revealed that there arepossible effects on attention and concentration^[@CR30]^, executive function^[@CR34]^ and information processing speed^[@CR30]^. The improvement in cognitive function from the combination products might be due to the synergistic effects of *C. asiatica* with other herbs or the effects of other herbs in *C. asiatica*-containing products such as *G. biloba* ^[@CR31],\ [@CR34]^. *G. biloba* is a well-known herbal medicine used for cognitive impairment. From previous systematic reviews and meta-analyses, *G. biloba* exhibited potential benefits for cognitive improvement in mild cognitive impairment or Alzheimer's patients^[@CR2],\ [@CR5]^. Moreover, beneficial effects on cognitive function of *Withania somnifera* (L.) Dunal, Spirulina (*Arthrospira platensis)* and paeoniflorin (monoterpene glucoside) have been exhibited in different pre-clinical models^[@CR30]^. None of the studies reported details on which parts of *C. asiatica* were used in the combination or how the combinations were prepared. Thus, thefindings could not show the direct effect of *C. asiatica* on cognitive function, and there is currently a lack of persuasive evidence to confirm a cognitive enhancing effect of *C. asiatica*.

For secondary outcomes, *C. asiatica* consumption was associated with improvements in self-reported alertness (after 2 months of ingestion) and with reductions in self-reported anger (after 1 hour of ingestion). Moreover, *C. asiatica* alone (750 mg/day for 2 months) induced alertness and calmness. These improvements in alertness and calmness may facilitate cognitive function by improving working memory, attention and concentration, executive function and information processing speed, and memory capacity and by reducing the time to solve problems. These results also support the traditional use of *C. asiatica* as a brain tonic. However, the positive effects may be caused by the other herbs in the combination products, so firm conclusions on the efficacy of *C. asiatica* cannot be drawn. There were also no significant differences between *C. asiatica* and placebo for physical or total QoL scores. From the safety data, *C. asiatica* seems to be safe since there were no serious adverse events reported in any of the included articles.

This meta-analysis included both *C. asiatica* alone and *C. asiatica* combined with other herbs. There were differences among the included studies such as differences in the part of *C. asiatica* used, dosage forms, extraction procedures, preparation, and outcome measurements. However, based on the objectives, all cognitive function data were collected from the RCTs that used any type of *C. asiatica*. The authors believe that the analysis is valid to address the objectives. Using the standardized mean difference (SMD), allowed the effect of *C. asiatica* on cognitive function to be assessed across the various types of cognitive function measurements used in the included studies. SMD converts data from different scales to a common scale. However, the standardization causes the original information for each measurement to be lost, so the findings cannot be interpreted in common units. They can only provide the level of significance of the effect of *C. asiatica* compared to the comparators^[@CR39]^.

A classification defined by previous studies was used to determine the domains of cognitive function and pool the findings together^[@CR1],\ [@CR37]^. This classification has been used in several studies^[@CR37],\ [@CR40]--[@CR42]^ to classify the domains of cognitive function and pool their findings. Thus, it is believed that the approach is appropriate for this meta-analysis. As no validation study of the classification was conducted, future studies may look into this issue.

This review identified limitations in the reporting of clinical studies of *C. asiatica*. Most of the included studies did not report details on the parts of the *C. asiatica* plant used in the products, the standardization methods, the active marker contents, or the methods for preparing the products. Only three of eleven (27*%)* trials^[@CR26],\ [@CR28],\ [@CR30]^ reported standardization methods of the plant extract, and only two trials (18*%)* reported the amount of the active compounds (asiaticoside and asiatic acid) contained in the *C. asiatica* extract^[@CR26],\ [@CR28]^. Moreover, none of the studies reported qualitative analyses (such as HPLC fingerprints) of the *C. asiatica* in their studies. Clinical trials of herbal medicine should use standardized products as interventions and should report the detail of each intervention according to the CONSORT statement for reporting herbal medicinal interventions^[@CR43]^. Furthermore, the place, conditions, and season of cultivation as well as the parts of the plant used can affect the pentacyclic triterpene (asiaticoside, asiatic acid, madecassoside, madecassic acid) contents of the *C. asiatica* raw material^[@CR44]^. Lack of herbal standardization in clinical trials may affect the quality of studies and explain the variations in the clinical effects across studies. Interpretation of the findings of this systematic review should be done with cautions due to the lack of information about standardization.

Another consideration is that the doses of *C. asiatica* in each study were different, ranging from 40--12,000 mg/day. Variations in *C. asiatica* preparation were also observed. For *C. asiatica* alone, three of five trials used dry *C. asiatica* powder ranging from 500--12,000 mg/day while two trials used *C. asiatica* water extract ranging from 250--750 mg/day. Furthermore, the doses used in most of the included studies were lower than the traditional dose recommendation for cognitive improvement (3 g/day of *C. asiatica* powder)^[@CR38]^. In the combination products, the dose of *C. asiatica* was very low (40--204 mg/day) compared with the main active component except in one study that used *C. asiatica* 1,000 mg/day^[@CR29]^. Additionally, the dose and preparation of *C. asiatica* in some combination products was not clear. These limitations may affect the pooled data of *C. asiatica* in each cognitive domain. Moreover, the observed findings did not support a direct effect of *C. asiatica* containing products on cognitive function. There is currently a lack of persuasive evidence to confirm a cognitive enhancing effect of *C. asiatica*.

Based on this review, future well-designed clinical trials are warranted to evaluate the effects of *C. asiatica* products on cognitive function and mood as well as its safety. Standardized doses of *C. asiatica* products should be investigated over short-term and long-term periods of ingestion for effects in each specific cognitive domain, especially working memory, attention and concentration, executive function, and information processing speed.

In conclusion, the findings revealed that there is no strong evidence to support the effect of *C. asiatica* on overall cognitive function improvement. However, *C. asiatica* may improve working memory. A combination of *C. asiatica* with other herbs may improve attention and concentration, executive function, and information processing speed. *C. asiatica* may also improve mood disorders in terms of self-reported alertness and reductions in self-reported anger. Issues with dosage and preparation standardization need to be considered when these findings are applied. Future well-designed clinical trials are needed to assess the effects of standardized *C. asiatica* on cognitive function and mood as well as safety.

Methods {#Sec9}
=======

This systematic review was conducted according to the Cochrane Collaboration framework guidelines^[@CR39]^ and was reported in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) Statement^[@CR45]^. The review protocol was registered with PROSPERO (registration number: CRD42015023595).

Search strategies and study selection {#Sec10}
-------------------------------------

An electronic search was conducted for original articles from inception to September 2016 using a number of electronic databases including AMED, CINAHL, Cochrane Central Register of clinical trial, EMBASE, PubMed, Psyc﻿info, Science direct, Scopus, [www.clinicaltrials.gov](http://www.clinicaltrial.gov), ThaiLis, Thai Index Medicus, Thai Medical Index, and Thai Thesis Database. Strategic search terms were *C. asiatica* name, OR active compound from *C. asiatica* (such as asiaticoside, madecassoside, asiatic acid, madecassic acid), OR *C. asiatica* containing products combined with cognitive function or memory and its related properties including mood and quality of life. Details of the search strategies are described in appendix A. Eligibility criteria were 1) published and unpublished randomized controlled trials in patients or healthy volunteers and 2) reported effects of *C. asiatica* or a combination of *C. asiatica* with other herbs in humans. No language restriction was applied. To ensure that the search would be thorough, reference lists were reviewed to identify potential studies not indexed in above mentioned databases. Furthermore, corresponding authors of identified studies were consulted for additional studies as sources. Titles and abstracts were screened according to the eligibility criteria. Full-text articles of the potential studies were retrieved from database or corresponding authors and were subsequently assessed independently by two researchers (PP, PD) for inclusion in the meta-analysis. Disagreements between the independent researchers were settled by discussion and consensus with a third independent researcher (NC).

Data extraction and quality assessment {#Sec11}
--------------------------------------

Data extraction was undertaken using a standard data extraction form. Extracted data included study design, characteristics of participants, characteristics of intervention and comparator, duration of herbal use, follow-up time, cognitive function tests, and cognitive function outcomes. Data for cognitive function tests included the name of the cognitive function test, the cognitive function domain, the outcome measures, and the outcome scale. For this meta-analysis, each cognitive test was categorized into one specific domain of cognitive function following a previous study^[@CR1]^. This approach avoids over-weighting effects and provides consistency for the evaluation of the effect of *C. asiatica* on cognition across studies (Appendix B, C). A primary outcome of interest was the clinical effect of *C. asiatica* on cognitive function in each domain (Appendix B) including attention and concentration, executive function, information processing speed, language, visuospatial skill, working memory, verbal memory, and visual memory as well as overall cognitive status. In addition, secondary outcomes were mood, quality of life, and adverse events reported across each intervention. Where relevant data were unavailable, it was sought directly from the corresponding authors.

The quality of included studies was assessed using the Cochrane risk of bias tool^[@CR39]^ and JADAD score^[@CR46]^. Sequence generation, allocation concealment, blinding, incomplete outcome data, selective outcome reporting, and other sources of bias were evaluated. Data search, data extraction, and quality assessment were performed by PP and PD. Disagreements between the reviewers were settled through discussion and consensus.

Statistical analysis {#Sec12}
--------------------

To determine the cognitive effect of *C. asiatica*, data for individual cognitive function tests were compared between *C. asiatica* and its comparator using standardized mean difference (SMD) or mean difference (MD) with a 95% confidence interval (CI). Heterogeneity was assessed by the *I* ^2^-statistic^[@CR47]^. Thresholds of *I* ^2^ were interpreted in accordance with the magnitude and direction of effects and strength of evidence of heterogeneity. *I* ^2^ values of more than 50% indicated substantial heterogeneity. Data from included studies were pooled using the Der Simonian and Laird random-effects model^[@CR48]^. The software used for data analysis was STATA version 12 (STATA Corp, College Station, TX, USA).

Data availability {#Sec13}
-----------------

The datasets generated during and/or analyzed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

**Publisher\'s note:** Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

The authors thank Miss Nutchakarn Vorachai and Mr Siriwat Na Ranong for providing support in the systematic review process. We also would like to thank Professor Dr. Daniel D Reidpath from Monash University Malaysia and Alicia Ritscher from University of Wisconsin-Madison, the United States of America for English editing. This systematic review received financial support from the Thai Traditional Medical Knowledge Fund.

P.P. participated in the study concept and design, data acquisition, data analysis, data interpretation, manuscript drafting, critical revision of the manuscript, and the final review of the manuscript. P.D. participated in the study concept and design, data acquisition, data analysis, data interpretation, manuscript drafting, critical revision of the manuscript, and the final review of the manuscript. S.S. participated in data analysis and the final review of the manuscript. T.D. participated in the study concept and design critical revision of the manuscript, and the final review of the manuscript. C.K. participated in the study concept and design critical revision of the manuscript, and the final review of the manuscript. R.S. participated in the study concept and design critical revision of the manuscript, and the final review of the manuscript. A.C. participated in the study concept and design critical revision of the manuscript, and the final review of the manuscript. N.C. participated in the study concept and design, data acquisition, data analysis, data interpretation, manuscript drafting, critical revision of the manuscript, and the final review of the manuscript.

Competing Interests {#FPar1}
===================

AC is currently a government official under the department for Development of Thai Traditional and Alternative Medicine, Ministry of Public Health, Nonthaburi, Thailand. Other authors declare no financial relationships with any organizations in the previous three years that might have an interest in the submitted work; no other relationships or activities that could appear to have influenced the submitted work exist.
