ReviewFrontiers in pharmacology2025
Diabetes and traditional remedies in Medieval Persia: a historical perspective.
Review in Frontiers in pharmacology, 2025. 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Traditional Persian Medicine (TPM) has long contributed to the diagnosis, prevention, and treatment of diabetes. Rooted in the theory of temperament, TPM classifies individuals and diseases according to four qualities: warm-dry, warm-wet, cold-wet, and cold-dry. In classical TPM literature, diabetes is referred to by various names-most notably "dhiabitos" and "dulāb"-and is consistently associated with dysfunction of the kidneys and liver. For this study, seminal TPM texts were systematically reviewed using targeted keywords to extract definitions, etiologies, symptoms, diagnostic criteria, and therapeutic strategies related to diabetes. These findings were supplemented with data from electronic databases, including ScienceDirect, PubMed, and Scopus. TPM classifies diabetes into two categories: hot and cold. Historical manuscripts detail a wide array of therapeutic preparations, predominantly herbal and herbo-mineral formulations, along with several mineral substances believed to balance temperament. Among these, oral dosage forms, particularly Safoofs (dry powders), were the most frequently prescribed across both categories. In total, 208 plant species from 81 botanical families, along with several mineral substances, were identified in traditional formulations. According to TPM, the medicinal plants, similarly to diseases, commonly exhibit either hot or cold properties, reflecting the principle that treatments should rebalance underlying dystemperament rather than merely relieve symptoms. This paradigm emphasizes addressing the root causes of disease. TPM physicians (hakims) often attribute diabetes to factors such as kidney dysfunction and dysregulated water metabolism. In contrast, modern biomedical literature does not distinguish between "hot" and "cold" diabetes; these classifications may reflect two stages in the spectrum of diabetes pathology. Hot diabetes may align with the early stages of Type 2 diabetes, while cold diabetes corresponds to the advanced stages of Type 2 diabetes or possibly Type 1 diabetes. Future research should examine the phytochemical and pharmacological profiles of plants used in the treatment of "hot" and "cold" diabetes, with a particular emphasis on their hypoglycemic properties. Plants used for "hot" diabetes may possess anti-inflammatory effects that protect pancreatic beta cells and improve insulin function. Additionally, it is important to explore the potential effectiveness of plants associated with "cold" diabetes in managing diabetes-related complications, such as nephropathy.
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.