ArticleAvicenna journal of phytomedicine
The effect of
Article in Avicenna journal of phytomedicine. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper, 1 of them a synthesis 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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveNumerous studies demonstrated the effect of grape on memory improvement. According to Iranian traditional medicine, "mavizˮ as a specific type of dried grapes can effectively improve memory. However, there is no reported clinical trial on the effect of "mavizˮ on memory improvement in humans. Hence, this study was conducted to investigate "mavizˮ effect on memory in university students. MATERIALS AND
methodsThis randomized open-label clinical trial was conducted on a total number of 53 students of Shahed University, Tehran, Iran, from November 2017 to February 2018. The participants were randomly allocated into an intervention group (receiving "mavizˮ, 25 g in the morning for 4 weeks) or a control group (who did not take "mavizˮ). The Digit Span Task and the N-Back Task were used for the measurement of working memory at the pre- and post-intervention stages.
resultsAccording to the results, no significant differences were found between the two groups regarding age, gender, marital status, and initial working memory test scores. "mavizˮ consumption produced a highly significant improvement in total working memory score in the Digit Span Task (5.18 vs. 2.35, p<0.001) and Acoustic Memory Span (1.29 vs. 0.62, p=0.021). Moreover, "mavizˮ consumption significantly increased the percentage of true responses in the N-Back Task and reduced the mean reaction time in the first level of the task.
conclusion"mavizˮ consumption was improved working memory in young healthy adults.
Indexed as
Identifiers
32850292PMC7430964What 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.