Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24943289›Full record

SynthesisJournal of human hypertension2015

The effect of chlorogenic acid on blood pressure: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials.

I J Onakpoya, E A Spencer, M J Thompson, C J Heneghan

Abstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Journal of human hypertension, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 48 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
48citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
9.6field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

48 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 139 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Trial
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Mitochondrial genome ofFrontiers in plant science · 2024
    Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

I J OnakpoyaUniversity of Oxford, Nuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, New Radcliffe House, Radcliffe Observatory Quarter, Oxford, UK.
E A SpencerUniversity of Oxford, Nuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, New Radcliffe House, Radcliffe Observatory Quarter, Oxford, UK.
M J Thompson1] University of Oxford, Nuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, New Radcliffe House, Radcliffe Observatory Quarter, Oxford, UK [2] Department of Family Medicine, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA.
C J HeneghanUniversity of Oxford, Nuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, New Radcliffe House, Radcliffe Observatory Quarter, Oxford, UK.
University of Oxford · GBSeattle University · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Several dietary supplements are currently marketed for management of hypertension, but the evidence for effectiveness is conflicting. Our objective was to critically appraise and evaluate the evidence for the effectiveness of chlorogenic acids (CGAs) on blood pressure, using data from published randomized clinical trials (RCTs). Electronic searches were conducted in Medline, Embase, Amed, Cinahl and The Cochrane Library. We also hand-searched the bibliographies of all retrieved articles. Two reviewers independently determined the eligibility of studies and extracted the data. The reporting quality of all included studies was assessed by the use of a quality assessment checklist adapted from the Consolidated Standard of Reporting Trials Statement. Disagreements were resolved through discussion. Seven eligible studies were identified, and five including 364 participants were included. There were variations in the reporting quality of the included RCTs. Meta-analysis revealed a statistically significant reduction in systolic blood pressure in favour of CGA (mean difference (MD): -4.31 mm Hg; 95% confidence interval (CI): -5.60 to -3.01; I(2)=65%; P<0.00001). Meta-analysis also showed a significant reduction in diastolic blood pressure favouring CGA (MD: -3.68 mm Hg; 95% CI: -3.91 to -3.45; I(2)=97%; P<0.00001). All studies reported no adverse events. In conclusion, the evidence from published RCTs suggests that CGA intake causes statistically significant reductions in systolic and diastolic blood pressures. The size of the effect is moderate. Few clinical trials have been conducted; they vary in design and methodology and are confined to Asian populations and funded by CGA manufacturers. Large independent trials evaluating the effects of CGA on blood pressure are warranted.

Indexed as

Blood PressureChlorogenic AcidHumansHypertensionRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicChlorogenic Acid

Identifiers

PMID24943289
OpenAlexW2042249653

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.