SynthesisFrontiers in medicine2026
A scoping review of clinical
Synthesis in Frontiers in medicine, 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Methods: The scoping review was conducted using the Joanna Briggs Institute's methodology for scoping reviews and reported using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR) guidelines. Searches were conducted using the term "ayurgenomics" both individually and in combination with other terms in PubMed, Scopus, ScienceDirect, and Semantic Scholar. The studies were grouped into three broad categories based on their area of coverage. Results: 16 clinical studies meeting the inclusion criteria out of a total of 281 were included for analysis. The studies were exclusively from India and published from the years 2012 to 2026. Out of the 16 studies, 13 were cross-sectional, while the remaining 3 were case-control. The total sample size was 3,695 subjects. Four methods of assessing Conclusion: This scoping review analyzes research on
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.