ორშაბათი, აპრილი 13, 2026
- Advertisement -
Google search engine
Global Ingredient Risk Index Botanical

Pau d’Arco Bark

Tabebuia impetiginosa

Also known as: Po de Arco, Pau d'Arco bark extract, Lapacho, Taheebo, Tabebuia bark, Lapachol

MODERATE RISK 4.0/10 How?

This ingredient is classified as unclassified risk (GIRI score: 4.0/10).

02

Safety Profile

Information not yet available for this ingredient profile.

═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════ -->
03

Interactions

Information not yet available for this ingredient profile.

═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════ -->
04

Evidence and Scientific Findings

Overview

Ingredient Overview

Pau d’Arco (Tabebuia impetiginosa) bark contains lapachol and beta-lapachone with antimicrobial, antifungal, and immunomodulatory properties. It is used for candida overgrowth and immune support. At high doses, lapachol has anticoagulant activity and has caused nausea, vomiting, and anemia in clinical studies. Avoid with anticoagulants. Contraindicated in pregnancy (uterotonic, abortifacient at high doses). Do not exceed recommended doses; therapeutic window is narrow.

Classification

Biological and Chemical Classification

Scientific Name
Tabebuia impetiginosa
Mechanism

Mechanism of Action

Information not yet available for this ingredient profile.

Clinical Evidence

Clinical Evidence of Effectiveness

Information not yet available for this ingredient profile.

Pharmacokinetics

Pharmacokinetics

Information not yet available for this ingredient profile.

Dosage

Recommended Dosage

Information not yet available for this ingredient profile.

═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════ -->
05

SETI — Scientific Evidence Transparency Index

SETI Score 51/100
Risk Level High risk
Scientific Confidence Low
Evidence Strength Limited
Key Benefit Botanical
Evidence Reviewed 9 PubMed studies
Scientific Confidence Low
Based on study quality, consistency, and recency

Executive Summary — Ingredient Assessment

SETI Score 51/100
Risk Level High risk
Evidence Strength Limited
Main Benefit Botanical
Ingredient Pau d’Arco Bark
Scientific name Tabebuia impetiginosa
Scientific Evidence Overview
  • 9 studies reviewed
  • 0 high-quality studies (meta-analysis or RCT)
  • Main clinical benefit observed: Botanical
  • Evidence consistency: High consistency across studies (100%)
Safety Signals
  • No significant safety signals identified in the reviewed literature.
Evidence Strength Limited
Final Scientific Assessment

The available scientific evidence for Pau d’Arco Bark indicates notable safety signals that warrant caution. Use should be considered carefully and monitored, particularly in sensitive populations or alongside other medications.

Ingredient Pau d’Arco Bark
Evidence reviewed 9 peer-reviewed studies (last 10 years)
Scientific name Tabebuia impetiginosa
51 /100

Total SETI Score

High risk
Evidence quality 9/40
Evidence consistency 20/20
Safety signals 2/20
Study recency 10/10
Evidence transparency 10/10

Evidence Summary

  • 9 studies reviewed
  • 0 high-quality studies (meta-analysis or systematic review)
  • 0 studies identified benefits or no safety concern (GREEN)
  • 9 studies reported limited or advisory safety evidence (YELLOW)

Evidence Policy

Only peer-reviewed scientific literature indexed in PubMed or comparable databases is included in this evaluation. Commercial websites, blogs, and marketing materials are excluded. All references include direct traceable links to source documents.

Last updated: 06 აპრ 2026, 12:10

Evidence Distribution

9 Other / unclassified
  1. Observational / other LOW evidence YELLOW
    LC-qTOF-MS/MS phytochemical profiling of Tabebuia impetiginosa (Mart. Ex DC.) Standl. leaf and assessment of its neuroprotective potential in rats. ↗
    PMID 38705428 ↗
    Journal J Ethnopharmacol
    Year 2024
    Study type Observational / other
    Evidence strength LOW evidence
    PubMed link https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/38705428/
    Khaled N et al.. LC-qTOF-MS/MS phytochemical profiling of Tabebuia impetiginosa (Mart. Ex DC.) Standl. leaf and assessment of its neuroprotective potential in rats.. J Ethnopharmacol. 2024. PMID:38705428.
  2. Observational / other LOW evidence YELLOW
    Safety and tolerability of Pau d' Arco (Tabebuia avellanedae) for primary dysmenorrhea: A single-arm, open-label trial on adults ages 18-45. ↗
    PMID 36960315 ↗
    Journal Adv Integr Med
    Year 2022
    Study type Observational / other
    Evidence strength LOW evidence
    PubMed link https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/36960315/
    McClure C et al.. Safety and tolerability of Pau d' Arco (Tabebuia avellanedae) for primary dysmenorrhea: A single-arm, open-label trial on adults ages 18-45.. Adv Integr Med. 2022. PMID:36960315.
  3. Observational / other LOW evidence YELLOW
    Antiparkinsonian activity of Tabebuia impetiginosa bark and biochemical analysis of dopamine in rat brain homogenates. ↗
    PMID 35240121 ↗
    Journal Ann Pharm Fr
    Year 2022
    Study type Observational / other
    Evidence strength LOW evidence
    PubMed link https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35240121/
    Pal Roy S et al.. Antiparkinsonian activity of Tabebuia impetiginosa bark and biochemical analysis of dopamine in rat brain homogenates.. Ann Pharm Fr. 2022. PMID:35240121.
  4. Observational / other LOW evidence YELLOW
    Isolation of endophytic bacteria from the medicinal, forestal and ornamental tree Handroanthus impetiginosus. ↗
    PMID 32875965 ↗
    Journal Environ Technol
    Year 2022
    Study type Observational / other
    Evidence strength LOW evidence
    PubMed link https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32875965/
    Yarte ME et al.. Isolation of endophytic bacteria from the medicinal, forestal and ornamental tree Handroanthus impetiginosus.. Environ Technol. 2022. PMID:32875965.
  5. Observational / other LOW evidence YELLOW
    The medicinal plant Tabebuia impetiginosa potently reduces pro-inflammatory cytokine responses in primary human lymphocytes. ↗
    PMID 33750911 ↗
    Journal Sci Rep
    Year 2021
    Study type Observational / other
    Evidence strength LOW evidence
    PubMed link https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33750911/
    Ryan RYM et al.. The medicinal plant Tabebuia impetiginosa potently reduces pro-inflammatory cytokine responses in primary human lymphocytes.. Sci Rep. 2021. PMID:33750911.
  6. Observational / other LOW evidence YELLOW
    Tabebuia impetiginosa: A Comprehensive Review on Traditional Uses, Phytochemistry, and Immunopharmacological Properties. ↗
    PMID 32962180 ↗
    Journal Molecules
    Year 2020
    Study type Observational / other
    Evidence strength LOW evidence
    PubMed link https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32962180/
    Zhang J et al.. Tabebuia impetiginosa: A Comprehensive Review on Traditional Uses, Phytochemistry, and Immunopharmacological Properties.. Molecules. 2020. PMID:32962180.
  7. Observational / other LOW evidence YELLOW
    Development and Validation of an Analytical Method Readily Applicable for Quality Control of Tabebuia impetiginosa (Taheebo) Ethanolic Extract. ↗
    PMID 28927490 ↗
    Journal J AOAC Int
    Year 2018
    Study type Observational / other
    Evidence strength LOW evidence
    PubMed link https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/28927490/
    Jin Y et al.. Development and Validation of an Analytical Method Readily Applicable for Quality Control of Tabebuia impetiginosa (Taheebo) Ethanolic Extract.. J AOAC Int. 2018. PMID:28927490.
  8. Observational / other LOW evidence YELLOW
    Lapachol and lapachone analogs: a journey of two decades of patent research(1997-2016). ↗
    PMID 28586252 ↗
    Journal Expert Opin Ther Pat
    Year 2017
    Study type Observational / other
    Evidence strength LOW evidence
    PubMed link https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/28586252/
    Hussain H et al.. Lapachol and lapachone analogs: a journey of two decades of patent research(1997-2016).. Expert Opin Ther Pat. 2017. PMID:28586252.
  9. Observational / other LOW evidence YELLOW
    u03b2-Lapachone Inhibits Lung Metastasis of Colorectal Cancer by Inducing Apoptosis of CT26 Cells. ↗
    PMID 27923905 ↗
    Journal Integr Cancer Ther
    Year 2017
    Study type Observational / other
    Evidence strength LOW evidence
    PubMed link https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/27923905/
    Kee JY et al.. u03b2-Lapachone Inhibits Lung Metastasis of Colorectal Cancer by Inducing Apoptosis of CT26 Cells.. Integr Cancer Ther. 2017. PMID:27923905.
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════ -->
06

Score Transparency

Q × L × D × S × 10 = 4.0 / 10

The GIRI Score is the product of four independently computed evidence components, each normalised to 0–1, then scaled to 0–10. Every component is derived exclusively from peer-reviewed references and regulatory data — no editorial judgement is applied.

Q
Evidence Quantity 0 / 10
0%

0 of 10 approved references (score saturates at 10). More peer-reviewed studies = stronger evidence base.

Method: Q = number of approved references ÷ 10 (capped at 1.0)

L
Evidence Quality 5 / 10
50%

Limited — mostly case reports or animal studies

Method: L = mean study-level weight across approved references. Level 1 (meta-analysis / systematic review) = 1.0; Level 2 (RCT) = 0.8; Level 3 (cohort/case-control) = 0.6; Level 4 (case report) = 0.4; Level 5 (animal / in-vitro) = 0.2.

D
Evidence Direction 5 / 10
Benefit
Risk
50%

Mixed or neutral — roughly equal benefit and risk signals

Method: D = (sum of risk-scored references − sum of benefit-scored references) ÷ total evidence score, then scaled from [−1, 1] to [0, 1]. 0.0 = pure benefit; 0.5 = neutral; 1.0 = pure risk.

S
Safety Signals 5 / 10
50%

One or more monitoring-level safety signals active

Method: S = 0.5 (neutral baseline) + sum of active signal severity deltas ÷ 10. Severity deltas: Critical = +2.0, High = +1.5, Moderate = +1.0, Low = +0.5. Capped at 1.0.

0Q × 5L × 5D × 5S = 4.0 / 10

Final GIRI Score for Pau d’Arco Bark. Risk level thresholds: Low 0–3.0 · Moderate 3.0–5.5 · High 5.5–7.5 · Critical 7.5–10.

Full methodology & data sources

The GIRI Score is computed entirely from structured data — no editorial scoring or subjective weighting is applied at any step.

  • References: Only approved references are counted. Each reference is assigned an evidence level (L1–L5) and a direction (risk / neutral / benefit) by the reference manager or AI classifier.
  • Safety Signals: Sourced from regulatory agencies (FDA, EMA, Health Canada, TGA, and others) and pharmacovigilance databases. Only active signals count toward the score.
  • Formula version: GIRI Score v3.7.0 — Q × L × D × S × 10.
  • Limitations: The score reflects published evidence and recorded signals as of the last update date. It is not a clinical risk assessment and should not replace advice from a qualified healthcare professional.
07

Risk Level Classification

MODERATE RISK 4.0/10

Based on available regulatory signals and scientific evidence, this ingredient presents a moderate safety concern. Caution is advised, particularly at high doses or in sensitive populations.

LOW
0–3.0
MODERATE
3.0–5.5
HIGH
5.5–7.5
CRITICAL
7.5–10
4.0

The score pin shows exactly where this ingredient falls on the fixed risk scale.

What drove the Moderate classification for Pau d’Arco Bark

GIRI Score 4.0 / 10

A score of 4.0 places this ingredient in the Moderate band. Thresholds: Low 0–3.0 · Moderate 3.0–5.5 · High 5.5–7.5 · Critical 7.5–10.

Evidence Quantity (Q) 0 / 10 refs

0 approved references.

Evidence Quality (L) 50%

Limited — mostly case reports or animal studies (Level 4–5).

Evidence Direction (D) 50% toward risk

Neutral or mixed — benefit and risk signals roughly balanced.

Safety Signals (S) 0 active signals

No active signals — S component is at neutral baseline (0.5), contributing no extra risk weight.

Regulatory Status No restrictions found

No major regulatory restrictions or advisories recorded across monitored jurisdictions (FDA, EMA, Health Canada, TGA, and others).

How are the Low / Moderate / High / Critical thresholds defined?

The four risk levels are fixed score bands. A score is assigned to exactly one level based on where it falls:

LevelScoreMeaning
LOW0.0 – 2.9Sparse or predominantly beneficial evidence. No active safety alerts.
MODERATE3.0 – 5.4Mixed signals — some risk alongside benefit. Caution at high doses or in sensitive groups.
HIGH5.5 – 7.4Multiple studies or regulatory alerts documenting adverse effects. Professional oversight recommended.
CRITICAL7.5 – 10Regulatory restrictions in one or more major jurisdictions. Serious documented harm. Avoid without specialist supervision.

Thresholds are fixed constants (GIRI_Score_Utils::LEVEL_THRESHOLDS). They do not change per ingredient and are never subject to editorial adjustment.

← Back to Ingredient Database

ბოლო სიახლეები

პოპულარული ამბები

კატეგორიები

ჩვენ შესახებ

info@accreditation.ge
ჩვენს შესახებ / რეკლამა / კონტაქტი

გამოგვყევი სოციალურ ქსელებში

© SheniEkimi.ge