ArticleScientific reports2026
Hematological and clinical-chemistry parameters of kratom users: a comparative study of users and non-users in Southern Thailand.
Article in Scientific reports, 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
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Kratom (Mitragyna speciosa) has transitioned from a traditional Southeast Asian remedy to a substance of global interest. The existing evidence on its safety is contradictory, with case reports from Western countries suggesting organ toxicity, while community-based studies in traditional settings show minimal adverse effects. This study aimed to evaluate the physiological impact of long-term, traditional kratom use in an endemic region of Southern Thailand. A cross-sectional study was conducted among 285 traditional kratom users and 296 non-user controls from the same community. Key hematological and clinical-chemistry parameters, including liver and kidney function markers, were compared. Analyses were stratified by sex and kratom use characteristics (duration and quantity) to assess subgroup-specific effects. Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) was used to adjust for potential confounding variables, including age, sex, BMI, smoking, and alcohol consumption. After adjusting for confounders, no clinically significant differences were observed in hepatic or hematological parameters, with mean values for both groups remaining within normal clinical reference ranges. However, kratom use was significantly associated with lower serum creatinine (p < 0.001) and higher eGFR (p = 0.002), a finding likely attributable to the lower BMI in the user group. Stratified analyses by duration and quantity revealed no clear dose-response relationship regarding organ toxicity, although higher consumption was associated with altered renal markers. These findings suggest that within a traditional-use setting, chronic kratom consumption was not associated with clinically significant hepatic or hematological toxicity. The observed association with renal markers is explained by differences in body composition rather than a direct pharmacological effect. These findings underscore the critical importance of controlling for lifestyle and demographic confounders in evaluating the health impacts of kratom.
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.