SynthesisFrontiers in pharmacology2025
Effectiveness and safety of Ayurvedic intervention in essential hypertension: a systematic review with meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Frontiers in pharmacology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. 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.
- Anthropometric predictors of hypertension among Moroccan adults: a cross-sectional study.Frontiers in public health · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Essential hypertension (EH) is a major contributor to cardiovascular morbidity and mortality that has become a public health challenge owing to poor control and adherence. Many clinical trials have exhibited the effectiveness of Ayurvedic formulations and procedures in the management of EH. In this systematic review and meta-analysis, we present an evaluation of the effectiveness and safety of Ayurvedic interventions compared to conventional therapies for EH. Method: The systematic review and meta-analysis presented herein adheres to the PRISMA guidelines. Accordingly, we conducted a literature search on PubMed, Cochrane Library, Directory of Open Access Journals, Google Scholar, AYUSH Research Portal, and Ayurveda Research Database for published works up to May 2025. The studies included randomized and non-randomized controlled trials, observational, and pre-post studies of Ayurvedic interventions for EH. The primary outcomes evaluated were systolic and diastolic blood pressure (BP) changes. The risk of bias of ten randomized controlled trials (RCTs) included in the meta-analysis was assessed using the Cochrane guidelines. The meta-analysis was performed in two groups, namely, Ayurveda vs. placebo and Ayurveda vs. standard antihypertensives, using RevMan 5.4. Result: A total of 44 studies was included in the systematic review, and ten RCTs involving 524 participants were included in the meta-analysis. The interventions included single herbs, polyherbal/herbomineral formulations, and Conclusion: This systematic review shows that although Ayurvedic interventions do not achieve significant BP reductions versus conventional treatments, they may provide clinical benefits with good safety. The main limitations of the present review are the heterogeneity and methodological differences among the different studies. Hence, high-quality multicenter RCTs with standardized interventions are needed to assess the overall effectiveness of these therapies. Systemetic Review Registration: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/view/CRD42019123886, Identifier PROSPERO.
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.