ReviewNutrients2026
Review in Nutrients, 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
10 authors.
Funding
Abstract
background
methodsThis structured narrative review searched PubMed/MEDLINE, Scopus, Web of Science Core Collection, ScienceDirect, Wiley Online Library, and Google Scholar for literature published from January 2015 through June 2026. Predefined thematic search blocks, eligibility criteria, staged screening, data extraction, and design-appropriate methodological appraisal were applied.
resultsThe most coherent evidence concerns antioxidant and anti-inflammatory mechanisms and possible metabolic effects, including lipid, glycemic, and body-weight-related outcomes. However, much of the evidence remains preclinical, while human studies are limited, heterogeneous in dose and formulation, and generally of short duration. Safety depends on total caffeine exposure, preparation temperature, processing-related contaminants, individual susceptibility, and concurrent medication use. Very-hot consumption and smoke-derived polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons represent avoidable risks.
conclusionsYerba mate may represent a functional beverage and source of bioactive ingredients, but therapeutic claims remain unsupported. Responsible use requires control of caffeine dose, beverage temperature, processing contaminants, and exposure in vulnerable populations. Future research should prioritize standardized preparations, long-term safety assessment, dose-response characterization, and adequately powered clinical trials.
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.