ArticleJMIR research protocols2026
Evaluation of the Comparative Efficacy of an Ayurvedic Formulation (
Article in JMIR research protocols, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. 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.
- Correction: Evaluation of the Comparative Efficacy of an Ayurvedic Formulation (JMIR research protocols · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: In Ayurveda, Prameha (diabetes mellitus) is considered Ashtamahagada Vyadhi (one among eight diseases difficult to treat and cure). Tridosha (three bio-humor in Ayurveda) with certain metabolic factors are involved in its pathogenesis. Frequent urination is a common symptom of this disease. Diabetes mellitus can be confused with type 2 diabetes mellitus in conventional science due to the resemblance in cardinal features. Objective: The primary objectives of this pilot study are to assess feasibility through recruitment, retention, adherence, data completeness, and participant acceptability. It also aims to estimate variability in outcome measures like fasting blood sugar and glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c). The secondary, exploratory objective is to observe trends in these clinical indicators to inform effect size assumptions for future trials. Methods: In this pilot study 36 individuals with type 2 diabetes mellitus will be recruited and split into two equal groups at random. In Group A (Control), metformin tablets (500 mg) will be prescribed daily once before lunch with plain water for 45 consecutive days. In Group B (Interventional group), the Nimba-Amalakyadi formulation will be prescribed 5 grams twice daily with an empty stomach (ie, 7 AM-5 PM) with lukewarm water for 45 consecutive days. Follow-up will be taken on days 45 and 90 to study the sustained effect of the drug. Results: The preliminary analysis of participant responses began in January 2025. Final results from this phase are expected to be available by June 2025. Recruitment rate (number recruited/month), eligibility rate (number eligible/number screened), retention rate at 45 days, compliance with intervention (percentage of prescribed doses taken), adherence to follow-up investigations, acceptability of intervention (based on participant-reported feedback), and data completeness rates are variables. Moreover, changes in the objective parameters, ie, reductions in blood sugar level (fasting and postprandial) and HbA1c values of patients will be also observed and recorded. Conclusions: A conclusion will be drawn according to the clinical findings obtained at baseline and follow-up visits with biochemical reports of the patients. The trial will prove the feasibility and comparative efficacy of Nimba Amalakyadi formulation versus metformin tablets for the management of type 2 diabetes mellitus.
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.