Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36142070›Full record

Trial reportInternational journal of environmental research and public health2022

The Effect of Short Treatment with Nigella Sativa on Symptoms, the Cluster of Differentiation (CD) Profile, and Inflammatory Markers in Mild COVID-19 Patients: A Randomized, Double-Blind Controlled Trial.

Khalid A Bin Abdulrahman, Abdullah Omar Bamosa, Abdullah I Bukhari, Intisar Ahmad Siddiqui, Mostafa A Arafa, Ashfaq A Mohsin, Mamdouh Faleh Althageel, Majed Owed Aljuaeed, Ibrahim Mohammed Aldeailej, Abdulaziz Ibrahim Alrajeh and 4 more

Abstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in International journal of environmental research and public health, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Analysis of Pharmacological Properties ofLife (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025
    Review
  2. International journal of molecular sciences · 2024
    Review
  3. Review
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

14 authors.

Khalid A Bin AbdulrahmanDepartment of Medical Education, College of Medicine, Imam Mohammad Ibn Saud Islamic University (IMSIU), Riyadh 13317, Saudi Arabia.ORCID 0000-0003-4756-552X
Abdullah Omar BamosaDepartment of Physiology, College of Medicine, Imam Abdulrahman Bin Faisal University, Dammam 34212, Saudi Arabia.ORCID 0000-0001-5941-4353
Abdullah I BukhariDepartment of Medicine, Division of Infectious Diseases, College of Medicine, Imam Mohammad Ibn Saud Islamic University (IMSIU), Riyadh 13317, Saudi Arabia.
Intisar Ahmad SiddiquiDepartment of Dental Education, College of Dentistry, Imam Abdulrahman Bin Faisal University, Dammam 31441, Saudi Arabia.
Mostafa A ArafaCollege of Medicine, King Saud University, P.O. Box 2925, Riyadh 11461, Saudi Arabia.
Ashfaq A MohsinDepartment of Pharmaceutics, College of Clinical Pharmacy, Imam Abdulrahman Bin Faisal University, Dammam 34212, Saudi Arabia.ORCID 0000-0001-5669-5575
Mamdouh Faleh AlthageelMinistry of Health, King Salman Bin Abdulaziz Hospital, Riyadh 12769, Saudi Arabia.
Majed Owed AljuaeedMinistry of Health, King Salman Bin Abdulaziz Hospital, Riyadh 12769, Saudi Arabia.
Ibrahim Mohammed AldeailejMinistry of Health, Riyadh Regional Lab and Blood Bank, Riyadh 12746, Saudi Arabia.
Abdulaziz Ibrahim AlrajehMinistry of Health, Riyadh Regional Lab and Blood Bank, Riyadh 12746, Saudi Arabia.
Kamel Mohamed AldosariMinistry of Health, Riyadh Regional Lab and Blood Bank, Riyadh 12746, Saudi Arabia.
Najat Ahmed HawsawiMinistry of Health, Riyadh Regional Lab and Blood Bank, Riyadh 12746, Saudi Arabia.
Khalid Ibrahim ZawbaeeMinistry of Health, Riyadh Regional Lab and Blood Bank, Riyadh 12746, Saudi Arabia.
Saad Mohammed AlsurayeaMinistry of Health, Riyadh Regional Lab and Blood Bank, Riyadh 12746, Saudi Arabia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The current study investigated the impact of different doses of

methodsThe study was a double-blind placebo-controlled clinical trial. Patients with mild and asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection patients were randomly subdivided into seven subgroups: Group (GP) 1: received charcoal capsules as a control group, and GP 2: received three capsules of whole

results262 subjects were included in the final analysis. No significant difference was detected regarding age, gender, and nationality. No significant differences were detected between the inflammatory marker in all groups. The WBCs showed a significant difference between before and after the intervention. While for procalcitonin, a significant difference was demonstrated in groups 1,4, and 6.

conclusionsThe current randomized clinical trial did not reveal a significant effect of ten days of treatment with various doses of

Indexed as

Biological ProductsCOVID-19 Drug TreatmentNigella sativaCharcoalDouble-Blind MethodHumansPhytotherapyPowdersProcalcitoninSARS-CoV-2SeedsBiological ProductsCharcoalPowdersProcalcitoninanti-inflammatorymild COVID-19Nigella sativarandomized clinical trialSaudi Arabia

Identifiers

PMID36142070
PMCPMC9517329

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.