Botanical interventions for alcohol hangover: a scoping review

Background Botanical interventions are widely studied and marketed for alcohol hangover, but direct symptom evidence, biomarker findings, and preclinical results are frequently conflated. This scoping review mapped the clinical and preclinical evidence for botanical interventions for alcohol hangover and examined the reproducibility of botanical and extract reporting. Methods PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, the Cochrane Library, CBM, CNKI, VIP, and Wanfang Data were searched from inception to 22 July 2025. Citation searching and peer-reviewer recommendation were used as additional identification methods. Evidence was organized as Level 1 (direct human hangover symptoms), Level 2 (human pharmacokinetic/exposure, biochemical, mechanistic, and pharmacogenetic outcomes), and Level 3 (preclinical animal evidence); safety was charted separately. Botanical identity and extract characterization were charted using a ConPhyMP-informed framework. Results Twenty-two studies reported in 21 publications were included: 15 human studies and seven animal studies, with one publication containing both human and animal experiments. Across the human studies, 470 participants were enrolled or randomized and 437 were included in the reported analyses. Sex was available for 400 analyzed participants, of whom 293 (73.3%) were male. Direct symptom evidence was heterogeneous: seven publications showed a positive signal, six were mixed, and two were null. Pharmacokinetic or biomarker changes were not treated as substitutes for symptom improvement. Scientific botanical identity was reported in 19/21 publications, whereas authentication and voucher numbers were reported in only 3/21 each; quantitative marker analysis or a defined phytochemical profile was reported in 8/21. Safety reporting was inconsistent. Conclusion Several botanical interventions showed preliminary signals in selected hangover symptoms or alcohol-related biomarkers, but the clinical evidence remains limited and heterogeneous and includes mixed and null findings. The current evidence is insufficient to establish routine therapeutic efficacy or long-term safety. Future studies should prioritize adequately powered trials with validated symptom outcomes, clear prevention-versus-treatment timing, and reproducible botanical and phytochemical characterization. Systematic Review Registration https://osf.io/cv83d , identifier https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/CV83D .