Related Herbs
Botanicals connected by the same goals, effects, or research topics.
Herb Profile
Mugwort
Artemisia vulgaris
Mugwort (Artemisia vulgaris) carries a Grade C rating — limited evidence.
Last reviewed: •3 sources citedReport a correctionProfile-wide ·C Limited
Use extra caution — Culinary or tea use is usually lower risk, but concentrated oils/extracts can irritate GI or mucosal tissue. Details
- Evidence
- Limited Evidence
- Typical onset
- Varies by prep
- Safety rating
- High caution
- Best for
- Digestive
- Avoid / review if
- Pregnancy, Seizure Disorder, Asteraceae Allergy
At a glance
From this profile's structured data- Evidence
- Grade C
- Safety
- Culinary or tea use is usually lower risk, but concentrated oils/extracts can irritate GI or mucosal tissue.
- Profile context
- digestive
Next stepsWhere to go next — guides & comparisons
Continue reading
- If you want to browse more herbs → All herbs
Safety
Safety & Cautions
Culinary or tea use is usually lower risk, but concentrated oils/extracts can irritate GI or mucosal tissue. Avoid pregnancy dose escalation and use caution with reflux/allergy.
High caution
Caution level: High. Multiple caution categories apply, or the record uses avoid/contraindication language.
Detailed safety fields
Pregnancy, breastfeeding, and contraindications
- Pregnancy
- Seizure Disorder
- Asteraceae Allergy
- Internal Essential Oil Use
- Caution With Anticonvulsants
- Sedatives
- And Drugs Affected By Seizure Threshold.
Full safety note
- Culinary or tea use is usually lower risk, but concentrated oils/extracts can irritate GI or mucosal tissue. Avoid pregnancy dose escalation and use caution with reflux/allergy.
Evidence-based safety
Caution when combined
Severity and certainty are shown separately. A high-priority caution can still be theoretical: these pairings are screened from shared contraindication mechanisms and are not automatically documented clinical interactions. Provenance identifies the source fields that produced each flag; it does not upgrade the certainty of the pairwise claim.
Moderate Caution
68 flagged pairingsSedation / CNS depression
Moderate Caution
68 flagged pairingsSedation / CNS depression
Representative pairings are shown below. Large mechanism groups are intentionally summarized to keep profiles focused and crawl-efficient.
Sedation / CNS depressionCertainty: Theoretical
Data provenance recorded for 68 of 68 pairings in this mechanism group.
- American Yellow Lotus — Theoretical interaction certainty
- Artemisia Absinthium — Theoretical interaction certainty
- Ashwagandha (Withania somnifera) — Theoretical interaction certainty
- Bacopa — Theoretical interaction certainty
- Black Seed — Theoretical interaction certainty
- Black Tea — Theoretical interaction certainty
- Blue Lotus — Theoretical interaction certainty
- Calamus — Theoretical interaction certainty
- Catuba — Theoretical interaction certainty
- Celastrus Paniculatus — Theoretical interaction certainty
- Chamomile — Theoretical interaction certainty
- Chinese Skullcap — Theoretical interaction certainty
+56 more pairings share this mechanism. Use the Safety Checker to review a specific combination.
Evidence
Evidence Summary
Evidence lens
Read as directional context, not settled clinical proof.
LimitedLimited Evidence
Human clinical evidence: Not the primary signal
Mechanistic / preclinical: Mechanism mapped — Digestive Support · Traditional Cycle Support
Research maturity: Theoretical / mechanistic research — Mechanistic or unresolved evidence is kept separate from established human outcomes.
Safety boundary: Safety note available — Culinary or tea use is usually lower risk, but concentrated oils/extracts can irritate GI or mucosal tissue.
This profile cites 3 human studies.
Study design details
Evidence Grade
Grade C: Limited Evidence
Evaluation of methodological rigor, population reach, and evidence alignment.
- Design Match
- Narrative review
- Risk of Bias
- High
- Consistency
- Not assessed
Strongest recorded design is a narrative review, drawn from 2 recorded studies, none of which measured an outcome in people.
How evidence grades work
Each grade reflects the strength and consistency of published human evidence — not marketing claims. Grades are based on study count, design quality, effect size, consistency, and recency.
- Strong
- Multiple RCTs, consistent direction, adequate effect size
- Moderate
- Some RCTs or consistent observational data in humans
- Preliminary / Mixed
- Animal or in-vitro only, or conflicting human data
- Traditional / Theoretical
- Traditional use only; no controlled human trials
Clinical Study Summaries (4)0 human evidence sources · 0 human trials · Participant totals not consistently reported · Consistency not yet classifiable
Filter by study class
Showing 4 of 4 studies.
What the evidence actually shows
This table contains 4 structured sources, including 0 human evidence sources; 0 are human trials. A reliable participant total cannot be calculated because sample size is not consistently structured in the cited sources. Source-to-conclusion relationships are not classified in this structured set, so consistency is not yet classifiable.
Profile-wide evidence grade: see the profile grade above · Confidence: not separately assigned
What would change our conclusion?
Larger, well-controlled human trials using comparable populations, doses, preparations, and clinically meaningful outcomes could materially strengthen or weaken this conclusion. Replication in a different population or a high-quality synthesis resolving current disagreement could also materially change confidence.
| Study | Design | N | Dose | Duration | Population | Outcome | Result & magnitude | Source |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Chen JL et al. · Ann Allergy Asthma Immunol · 2011 Background | Narrative review Summarizes selected literature without the full prespecified search and selection methods of a systematic review. | — | — | — | — | — | — | PubMed → |
The skin prick test - European standards Heinzerling L et al. · Clin Transl Allergy · 2013 Background | Other / unclear The study design is not yet classified clearly enough to infer its place in the evidence hierarchy. | — | — | — | — | — | — | PubMed → |
Ukleja-Sokołowska N et al. · Int J Immunopathol Pharmacol · 2016 Background | Other / unclear The study design is not yet classified clearly enough to infer its place in the evidence hierarchy. | — | — | — | — | — | — | PubMed → |
Background | Other / unclear The study design is not yet classified clearly enough to infer its place in the evidence hierarchy. | — | — | — | — | — | Clinical allergy literature documents severe mugwort-associated cross-reactivity with celery, carrot, and spices, including serious reactions in sensitized individuals. This is a more specific safety signal than a generic 'allergy possible' warning. | PubMed → |
Dosing & Timing
- No standardized dose
- Preparation specific; use standardized product label for Leaf tea/tincture and require source backed dosage review before therapeutic claims.
How Mugwort works
Simplified mechanism pathway based on preclinical and pharmacological evidence. Does not confirm clinical efficacy.
Mechanism Pathway — How Mugwort Works
CompoundTarget / ReceptorMechanismEffect / Outcome
Mechanisms & biological pathways
Preclinical pathways. Proposed mechanisms from in vitro and animal research; these do not confirm clinical outcomes in humans.
- Digestive Support
- Traditional Cycle Support
Active Compounds
Key constituents studied in Mugwort, with full pharmacology and safety profiles.
Compare related active botanicals
Explore botanicals with similar chemistry, effects, or safety considerations in the Botanical Activity Atlas.
Guides that use Mugwort
Condition guides
Compare & Sourcing
Compare side-by-side tradeoffs or verify active marker guidelines.
Continue comparing
Safety first · Harm reduction
This information is educational and not medical advice. Start low, avoid risky combinations, and consult a licensed clinician before making health decisions—especially if you use medications, have diagnosed conditions, or are pregnant/breastfeeding.
Learn how we evaluate confidence, safety, and intensity on the methodology page.
Editorial Review
Checked against primary sources, cited evidence, and contraindication language before publication. Evidence claims, safety language, and affiliate modules are reviewed independently. Not personal medical advice.
Help improve this profile
Was this useful for your research?
These controls record only the page and the structured choice you make when analytics consent is enabled. Please don’t include personal medical information in research requests.
Was this evidence summary clear?
Did you find what you were researching?
Free safety checklist
Get the Mugwort research notes
Evidence summaries, dosing context, and safety updates for this herb — straight to your inbox.
We use your email to send the checklist and occasional evidence-first supplement updates. Unsubscribe anytime. Privacy policy.
Botanical profile context
How to interpret Mugwort
Mugwort herb profile with evidence context, key research topics, source notes, safety context, and references presented in an evidence-first format. Use this herb profile as a starting point for evidence review, not as a recommendation to start a new supplement. Botanical products can vary by plant part, extract ratio, standardization, dose, and contaminant testing, so two labels with the same common name may not behave the same way.
When reviewing Mugwort, compare the traditional-use context against the human evidence, mechanism notes, and safety cautions. Pay special attention to pregnancy, breastfeeding, liver or kidney disease, blood-pressure effects, sedation, stimulation, anticoagulant use, antidepressants, and any prescription medication overlap.
For product decisions, prefer transparent labels, named extracts, clear serving sizes, and third-party quality testing. Avoid treating a long list of possible mechanisms as proof that an herb will solve a specific condition.