SynthesisFrontiers in pharmacology2026
The efficacy and safety of ginseng berry saponin for heart failure: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Frontiers in pharmacology, 2026. 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Ginseng berry saponin (GBS), the primary bioactive constituent of Objective: To assess the clinical efficacy and safety of GBS as an adjunct therapy for HF through systematic review and meta-analysis. Methods: A comprehensive and systematic literature search was conducted across seven electronic databases, with no language restrictions, from their respective inception dates through 31 March 2025. These databases included PubMed, the Cochrane Library, EMBASE, Web of Science China National Knowledge Infrastructure China Science and Technology Journal Database (VIP), and Wanfang Data. For quality assessment, the Cochrane Risk of Bias (ROB 2.0) tool was employed, and meta-analyses were performed using Review Manager (RevMan, version 5.4). Under a random-effects model, mean differences and their corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated. Additionally, the certainty of evidence for each outcome was systematically assessed using the GRADE methodology (GRADEpro software v3.6). The study has been registered in PROSPERO, with the registration number CRD420251003193. Results: The final analysis integrated 32 RCTs, comprising 3,476 HF patients for efficacy and safety assessment. Meta-analysis results indicated that adjunctive GBS therapy significantly improved the following outcomes compared with the control group (all P < 0.01): LVEF (MD = 8.91, 95%CI [6.78, 11.04]), 6MWTD (MD = 63.11, 95%CI [43.27, 82.95]), FS (MD = 2.63, 95%CI [2.04, 3.22]), SV (MD = 6.68, 95%CI [5.56, 7.80]), Cardiac Index (MD = 0.51, 95%CI [0.33, 0.70]), CO (MD = 0.68, 95%CI [0.38, 0.99]), NO (MD = 10.82, 95%CI [7.49, 14.15]), FMD (MD = 2.42, 95%CI [1.45, 3.39]), and NMD (MD = 2.13, 95%CI [1.04, 3.21]). Conversely, adjunctive GBS therapy significantly reduced the following parameters (all P < 0.01): LVEDD (MD = -5.71, 95%CI [-7.59, -3.82]), LVESD (MD = -6.30, 95%CI [-10.00, -2.59]), BNP (MD = -159.86, 95%CI [-199.17, -120.56]), NT-proBNP (MD = -529.13, 95%CI [-673.92, -384.33]), CRP (MD = -1.98, 95%CI [-2.25, -1.71]), hs-CRP (MD = -1.61, 95%CI [-2.66, -0.56]), TNF-α (MD = -20.42, 95%CI [-32.58, -8.26]), MMP-9 (MD = -34.76, 95%CI [-54.96, -14.56]), ET-1 (MD = -20.08, 95%CI [-30.18, -9.98]), SAS score (MD = -7.49, 95%CI [-11.43, -3.55]), SDS score (MD = -14.53, 95%CI [-17.26, -11.80]), HAMA score (MD = -4.48, 95%CI [-6.77, -2.20]), and HAMD score (MD = -5.79, 95%CI [-8.89, -2.68]). Conclusion: This systematic review suggests that adjunctive GBS therapy may be associated with improvements in surrogate cardiac function measures and patient-reported outcomes in patients with HF. However, these findings should be considered preliminary, as they are derived predominantly from low- and very low-certainty evidence, with no data on hard clinical endpoints such as mortality or hospitalization. Given these substantial limitations, the available evidence does not support the routine clinical use of GBS in HF management. Individualized application may be considered only in the context of shared decision-making and acknowledgment of the underlying evidence uncertainty. Systematic Review Registration: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/view/CRD420251003193.
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.