Trial reportComplementary medicine research2022
The Immediate Effect of Sinapis nigra and Zingiber officinale as Thermogenic Substances during Footbaths: A Randomized Controlled Crossover Trial.
Trial report in Complementary medicine research, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
objectiveWarm footbaths infused with Sinapis nigra (mustard, or MU) or Zingiber officinale (ginger, or GI) are used for various thermoregulatory conditions, but little is known about how they are perceived by individuals, both short- and long-term. We analyzed the immediate and long-term effects of MU and GI on warmth and stimulus perception in healthy adults.
methodsSeventeen individuals (mean age 22.1±2.4 years; 11 female) received three footbaths (mean temperature was 40 ± 0.2°C, administered between 1:30 and 6:30 p.m.) in a randomized order with a crossover design: 1. with warm water only (WA), 2. with warm water and MU, and 3. with warm water and GI. Warmth and stimulus perception at the feet were assessed at the 1st, 5th, 10th, 15th, and 20th minute of the footbaths, in the late evening (EVE), and the following morning (MG). We further assessed well-being (at EVE and MG) and sleep quality (at MG). The primary outcome measure was the warmth perception at the feet at the 10th minute of the footbath.
resultsAt the 10th minute of the footbath, warmth perception at the feet was significantly higher with MU and GI compared to WA. The immediate thermogenic effects pointed to a quick increase in warmth and stimulus perception with MU, a slower increase with GI, and a gradual decrease with WA. Regarding the long-term effects, warmth and stimulus perception were still higher after GI compared to WA at EVE and MG. No differences were seen for general well-being and sleep quality.
conclusionThermogenic substances can significantly alter the dynamics of warmth and stimulus perception when added to footbaths. The different profiles in the application of GI and MU could be relevant for a more differentiated and specific use of both substances in different therapeutic indications.
Indexed as
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.