ArticleEvidence-based complementary and alternative medicine : eCAM2021
The Effects of
Article in Evidence-based complementary and alternative medicine : eCAM, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 12 citations in OpenAlex.
- The effects of berberine supplementation on cardiovascular risk factors in adults: A systematic review and dose-response meta-analysis.Frontiers in nutrition · 2022Pooled it
- The Effect of Berberis (Vulgaris and Integerrima) on Cardiovascular Risk Factors in Patients With Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus: A Systematic Review, Meta-Analysis, and GRADE Assessment.Current therapeutic research, clinical and experimental · 2025Review
- Cardiovascular Effects of Herbal Products and Their Interaction with Antihypertensive Drugs-Comprehensive Review.International journal of molecular sciences · 2024Review
- Isolation and Identification of Polyphenols From Fresh Sweet Sorghum Stems and Their Antibacterial Mechanism Against Foodborne Pathogens.Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
background
methodsIn a randomized controlled clinical trial, patients with T2DM who met the inclusion criteria were randomly divided into two groups of drug (
resultsDuring the study, 30 and 35 patients in the drug and control groups, respectively, completed the study. Although no significant changes occurred in any parameter within each group, postintervention FBS (117.5 [107-128.8] versus 134 [120-142],
conclusionConsumption of
Identifiers
What 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.