ArticleAvicenna journal of phytomedicine
The efficacy of sumac (
Article in Avicenna journal of phytomedicine. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Sumac (Rhus coriaria L.) and Human Metabolic Health: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Endocrinology, diabetes & metabolism · 2026Pooled it
- Comparative Efficacy of Herbal Products for Improving Liver Enzymes and Inflammation in Metabolic Dysfunction-Associated Steatotic Liver Disease: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis.Gastro hep advances · 2026Review
- Sumac (Current developments in nutrition · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: This study aimed to assess the effect of sumac supplement in biochemical and anthropometric measurements in overweight or obese patients with non-alcoholic fatty liver disease. Materials and Methods: In this double-blind randomized controlled trial, 45 NAFLD patients were randomly divided into two groups. The intervention group received sumac capsules (3 g/day) with a balanced diet for 8 weeks, while the placebo group received placebo with a balanced diet. Anthropometric indices, lipid profile, fasting blood glucose, insulin, Homeostatic Model Assessment for Insulin Resistance, aspartate transaminase, alanine aminotransferase, high sensitivity C-reactive protein and malondialdehyde were measured at baseline and at the end of the study. Results: The results revealed a significant decrease in anthropometric indices (weight (p=0.001), body mass index (p=0.001), waist circumference (p=0.001), body fat mass (p=0.001), body fat percentage (p=0.001), visceral fat score (p=0.001), biochemical levels of total cholesterol (p=0.007), fasting blood sugar (p=0.006), insulin (p=0.004) and HOMA-IR (p=0.002)) after the intervention compared to the baseline. However, no significant difference was observed between the two groups concerning anthropometric and biochemical indices. Conclusion: In this study, no significant differences were observed between the two groups regarding anthropometric and biochemical indices. Thus, further studies with larger sample sizes are recommended to be conducted on the issue.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.