ReviewJournal of research in medical sciences : the official journal of Isfahan University of Medical Sciences2025
The effects of purslane consumption on blood pressure in adults: A grading of recommendations, assessment, development, and evaluation-assessed systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.
Review in Journal of research in medical sciences : the official journal of Isfahan University of Medical Sciences, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Results from different studies on the effects of purslane consumption on blood pressure (BP) are still debated. To fill this knowledge gap, we investigated the overall effects of purslane consumption on systolic BP (SBP) and diastolic BP (DBP). Materials and Methods: A comprehensive literature search was conducted on Scopus, Web of Science, PubMed, Google Scholar, and Cochrane databases. A random-effect model was used to estimate the weighted mean difference (WMD) and 95% confidence interval (CI) for each outcome. Between studies heterogeneity was assessed by the I2 test. Prespecified subgroup analyses were performed to examine heterogeneity across sample size, age, sex, dosage, duration, and health status. This meta-analysis included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) involving adults (≥18 years) with either parallel or crossover designs. Studies must have included a control group, with the only intervention being purslane consumption and reported data suitable for calculating BP outcomes. Study quality was assessed using the Cochrane risk of Bias Tool and evidence certainty was rated through the grading of recommendations, assessment, development, and evaluation (GRADE) approach. Results: Five trials were included in the meta-analysis. Pooled analysis showed that purslane consumption significantly reduced SBP (WMD: -3.06 mmHg, 95% CI: -6.02 to - 0.11, Conclusion: Our findings suggest that purslane consumption may have a modest but clinically significant effect on reducing SBP compared to placebo and may improve DBP in specific subgroups. Given that even small reductions in SBP are associated with important reductions in cardiovascular risk, purslane may represent a promising complementary nutritional strategy for BP management. However, further well-designed RCTs with larger sample sizes are needed to confirm these effects and assess their long-term clinical significance.
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.