MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4392193854 · doi:10.1002/ptr.8170

The effects of pomegranate consumption on blood pressure in adults: A systematic review and meta‐analysis

2024· review· en· W4392193854 on OpenAlexaff
Hossein Bahari, Kosar Omidian, Kian Goudarzi, Hossein Rafiei, Omid Asbaghi, Kosar Sadat Hosseini Kolbadi, Moslem Naderian, Ali Hosseini

Bibliographic record

VenuePhytotherapy Research · 2024
Typereview
Languageen
FieldNursing
TopicPomegranate: compositions and health benefits
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Saskatchewan
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMeta-analysisTraditional medicineBlood pressureMedicineSystematic reviewPharmacognosyMEDLINEInternal medicineBiologyBiochemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Considering the main component of cardiovascular disease and due to the high prevalence of hypertension, controlling blood pressure is required in individuals with various health conditions. Randomized clinical trials (RCTs) which studied the effects of pomegranate consumption on blood pressure have shown inconsistent findings. As a result, we intended to assess the effects of pomegranate consumption on systolic (SBP) and diastolic (DBP) blood pressure in adults. Systematic literature searches up to January 2024 were carried out using electronic databases, including PubMed, Web of Science, and Scopus, to identify eligible RCTs assessing the effects of pomegranate on blood pressure as an outcome. All the individuals who took part in our research were adults who consumed pomegranate in different forms as part of the study intervention. Heterogeneity tests of the selected trials were performed using the I2 statistic. Random effects models were assessed based on the heterogeneity tests, and pooled data were determined as the weighted mean difference (WMD) with a 95% confidence interval (CI). Of 2315 records, 22 eligible RCTs were included in the current study. Our meta‐analysis of the pooled findings showed that pomegranate consumption significantly reduced SBP (WMD: −7.87 mmHg; 95% CI: −10.34 to −5.39; p < 0.001) and DBP (WMD: −3.23 mmHg; 95% CI: −5.37 to −1.09; p = 0.003). Individuals with baseline SBP > 130 mmHg had a significantly greater reduction in SBP compared to individuals with baseline SBP < 130 mmHg. Also, there was a high level of heterogeneity among studies (SBP: I2 = 90.0% and DBP: I2 = 91.8%). Overall, the results demonstrated that pomegranate consumption lowered SBP and DBP in adults. Although our results suggest that pomegranate juice may be effective in reducing blood pressure in the pooled data, further high‐quality studies are needed to demonstrate the clinical efficacy of pomegranate consumption.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.012
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.028
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.019
Threshold uncertainty score0.066

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0120.028
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0190.035
Bibliometrics0.0070.007
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.105
GPT teacher head0.462
Teacher spread0.357 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designMeta-analysis
Domainnot available
GenreReview

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations12
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePhytotherapy ResearchSame topicPomegranate: compositions and health benefitsFrench-language works237,207