PlainPill

Centella Asiatica

Based on 6 first-hand reports and 16 meta-analyses & systematic reviews in the medical literature. Ranked #2954 of 4,149 overall.

9
User score
Mixed
0% positive17% mixed0% negative83% unclear

Of reports that state an outcome, 0% are positive.

Clinical research
AStrong research base
16
meta-analyses
46
RCTs
1,363
papers

What Centella Asiatica does, according to users

Of the people who reported each effect, the share who said it got better.

No specific effects reported yet.
betterno changeworse

What the research says

Systematic reviews and meta-analyses from PubMed, with their published conclusions.

AStrong research base

3+ meta-analyses or systematic reviews and 10+ randomized controlled trials in humans. The grade measures how much human research exists — read the conclusions below for what it found.

Int J Environ Res Public Health · 2022 · Meta-analysis / systematic review
A Systematic Review of the Effect of Centella asiatica on Wound Healing

Conclusion: C. asiatica might enhance wound healing resulting from improved angiogenesis. This might occur due to its stimulating effect on collagen I, Fibroblast Growth Factor (FGF) and Vascular Endothelial Growth Factor (VEGF) production. Besides, C. asiatica has shown an anti-inflammatory effect observed by the reduction in Interleukin-1β (IL-1β), Interleukin-6 (IL-6) and Tumour Necrosis Factor α (TNFα), prostaglandin E2 (PGE2), cyclooxygenase-2 (COX-2), and lipoxygenase (LOX) activity. Delivery systems such as nanoencapsulation could be used to increase C. asiatica bioavailability. Nevertheless, more

PubMed 35328954 ↗
Cochrane Database Syst Rev · 2016 · Meta-analysis / systematic review
Phlebotonics for venous insufficiency

Conclusion: Moderate-quality evidence shows that phlebotonics may have beneficial effects on oedema and on some signs and symptoms related to CVI such as trophic disorders, cramps, restless legs, swelling and paraesthesia when compared with placebo but can produce more adverse effects. Phlebotonics showed no differences compared with placebo in ulcer healing. Additional high-quality RCTs focused on clinically important outcomes are needed to improve the evidence base.

PubMed 27048768 ↗
Cochrane Database Syst Rev · 2020 · Meta-analysis / systematic review
Phlebotonics for venous insufficiency

Conclusion: There is moderate-certainty evidence that phlebotonics probably reduce oedema slightly, compared to placebo; moderate-certainty evidence of little or no difference in QoL; and low-certainty evidence that these drugs do not influence ulcer healing. Moderate-certainty evidence suggests that phlebotonics are probably associated with a higher risk of adverse events than placebo. Studies included in this systematic review provided only short-term safety data; therefore, the medium- and long-term safety of phlebotonics could not be estimated. Findings for specific groups of phlebotonics are limited

PubMed 33141449 ↗

Dosage people report

As stated by users — not a recommendation. Follow the label or your doctor.

six weeksas reported

Reported side effects

How often each side effect came up across all reports.

No side effects reported so far.

What users say

First-hand experiences, quoted verbatim. We show one positive and one negative where both exist.

More supplements

User data from public discussions; research from PubMed. Information only, not medical advice — talk to a doctor before starting, stopping or combining anything. Data updated October 3, 2026. How we rate