Trial reportJournal of human hypertension2017
Randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, assessment of the efficacy and safety of dietary supplements in prehypertension.
Trial report in Journal of human hypertension, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Interventions for reducing blood pressure in prehypertension: A meta-analysis.Frontiers in public health · 2023Pooled it
- Roselle for hypertension in adults.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2021Pooled it
- Roselle for hypertension in adults.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2010Pooled it
- Comparative effectiveness of lifestyle interventions for prehypertension: A network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.American journal of preventive cardiology · 2025Article
- Effects of Hawthorn Fruit Extract Drink in Chinese Patients With Mild Hypertension and/or Hyperlipidaemia: A Randomized, Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled, Crossover Study.Dose-response : a publication of International Hormesis SocietyArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
We aimed to evaluate efficacy and tolerability of a protocol including lifestyle modifications and a novel combination of dietary supplements in prehypertension. A prospective, double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled trial was conducted in 176 subjects (103 men, aged 52±10 years), with blood pressure (BP) of 130-139 mm Hg systolic and/or 85-89 mm Hg diastolic entered. After a single-blind run-in period, participants were randomised to twice daily placebo (n=88) or a commercially available combination pill (n=88). Primary endpoints were the differences in clinic BP between the two groups at the end of the trial. Secondary endpoints included intragroup differences in clinic BP during the study period and response rates (that is, BP <130/85 mm Hg or a BP reduction >5 mm Hg on week 12). Baseline characteristics were similar among the treatment groups. At 12 weeks, the supplement group had lower systolic BP (124±9 versus 132±7 mm Hg, P<0.0001) and similar diastolic BP (81±8 versus 82±7 mm Hg, P=0.382) compared to the placebo group. With respect to baseline measures, changes in BP with supplements were statistically significant for systolic (-9.3±4.2 mm Hg, P<0.0001) and diastolic values (-4.2±3.6 mm Hg, P<0.0001). Changes versus baseline in systolic and diastolic BP, conversely, were not different on placebo. The overall response rate at week 12 was significantly greater with supplements than placebo (58% (51 of 88) and 25% (22 of 88), respectively, P<0.0001). This randomised trial shows that combination of supplements with BP-lowering effect is an effective additional treatment to conventional lifestyle modifications for a better control of systolic BP in prehypertension.
Indexed as
Identifiers
28447625What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.