The effects of pomegranate consumption on blood pressure in adults: A systematic review and meta‐analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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 I 2 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: I 2 = 90.0% and DBP: I 2 = 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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".