ArticleFood & nutrition research2024
A standardized combination of
Article in Food & nutrition research, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Immunomodulatory Properties of Withania somnifera: Regulation of Innate Immune Cells and Clinical Implications.Phytotherapy research : PTR · 2026Review
- Integrative Rehabilitation for War-Related Polytrauma: A Narrative Review of Multidimensional Strategies and Implementation Challenges.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- In vitro antibacterial activity of neochebulinic acid from aqueous extract of Terminalia chebula Retz against Helicobacter pylori.BMC complementary medicine and therapies · 2025Article
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
Background: The use of botanical medicine has been demonstrated as a potential strategy to manage or treat a variety of health issues. Objective: This pilot study aimed to evaluate the immune function-enhancing potential of a unique blend of Methods: Forty healthy volunteers (age: 35-60 years) were randomized into two groups receiving either LN20189 (500 mg per day) or a matched placebo over 28 consecutive days. The total T-cell population was the primary efficacy measure in this study. The secondary efficacy measures included counts of CD4, CD8, natural killer (NK) cells, serum levels of interleukin-2 (IL-2), interferon-gamma (IFN-γ), total immunoglobulin-G (IgG), and Immune Function Questionnaire (IFQ) scores. Safety parameter assessments were also conducted. Results: Post-trial, in LN20189-supplemented subjects, T cells, CD4, NK cells count, and the CD4:CD8 ratio were increased by 9.32, 10.10, 19.91, and 17.43%, respectively, as compared to baseline. LN20189 supplementation increased serum IFN-γ and IgG levels by 14.57 and 27.09% from baseline and by 13.98 and 21.99%, compared to placebo, respectively. Also, the IFQ scores in the LN20189 group were 84.68% (vs. baseline) and 69.44% (vs. placebo) lower at the end of the trial. LN20189 improved the study volunteers' cellular and humoral immune functions. Conclusion: In summary, LN20189 supplementation was found tolerable and improved the key cellular and humoral factors of the immune system and helped improve immune function of the trial volunteers.
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.