Maca (L. meyenii) for improving sexual function: a systematic review
1 Division of Clinical Medicine, School of Oriental Medicine, Pusan National University, Yangsan, South Korea
2 Division of Standard Research, Korea Institute of Oriental Medicine, Daejeon, South Korea
3 Department of Nursing, Hanyang University Kuri Hospital, Kuri, Gyeonggi-Do, South Korea
4 Complementary Medicine, Peninsula Medical School, University of Exeter, Exeter, UK
Citation and License
BMC Complementary and Alternative Medicine 2010, 10:44 doi:10.1186/1472-6882-10-44Published: 6 August 2010
Maca (Lepidium meyenii) is an Andean plant of the brassica (mustard) family. Preparations from maca root have been reported to improve sexual function. The aim of this review was to assess the clinical evidence for or against the effectiveness of the maca plant as a treatment for sexual dysfunction.
We searched 17 databases from their inception to April 2010 and included all randomised clinical trials (RCTs) of any type of maca compared to a placebo for the treatment of healthy people or human patients with sexual dysfunction. The risk of bias for each study was assessed using Cochrane criteria, and statistical pooling of data was performed where possible. The selection of studies, data extraction, and validations were performed independently by two authors. Discrepancies were resolved through discussion by the two authors.
Four RCTs met all the inclusion criteria. Two RCTs suggested a significant positive effect of maca on sexual dysfunction or sexual desire in healthy menopausal women or healthy adult men, respectively, while the other RCT failed to show any effects in healthy cyclists. The further RCT assessed the effects of maca in patients with erectile dysfunction using the International Index of Erectile Dysfunction-5 and showed significant effects.
The results of our systematic review provide limited evidence for the effectiveness of maca in improving sexual function. However, the total number of trials, the total sample size, and the average methodological quality of the primary studies were too limited to draw firm conclusions. More rigorous studies are warranted.