Trial reportFrontiers in pharmacology2025
Efficacy and safety of
Trial report 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: The objective of this study was to assess the safety and efficacy of Patients and methods: A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial was conducted at Walailak University Hospital, Thailand. Participants were assigned 1:1 to receive Results: Seventy participants completed the trial (CA n = 34; placebo n = 36). Median age was 57 vs. 60 years, with women comprising 55.9% vs. 41.7% (CA vs. placebo). At 6 months, an unadjusted between-group difference in HbA1c was observed (p = 0.006); however, in the prespecified adjusted analysis (ANCOVA controlling for baseline HbA1c, diabetes duration, and sulfonylurea use) there were no between-group differences in HbA1c, fasting plasma glucose, or LDL-C. Although small within-group reductions in LDL-C were noted, the adjusted between-group comparison was not significant (p = 0.536), so lipid findings are exploratory. CA was well tolerated; mild, transient gastrointestinal symptoms were most common (5/34, 14.7%). Conclusion: CA supplementation was safe but did not produce a significant change in glycemic or lipid outcomes compared to placebo. Further studies with larger sample sizes, longer durations, and higher doses are warranted to verify potential metabolic effects. Clinical Trial Registration: This trial was registered with the Thai Clinical Trials Registry (TCTR20221219003); https://www.thaiclinicaltrials.org/show/TCTR20221219003.
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.