MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4414614407 · doi:10.53941/jmnp.2025.100021

The Anti-Obesity Effects of Triphala and Triphala Guggul: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Clinical Trials

2025· review· en· W4414614407 on OpenAlexaff
Arash Salehi, Sedigheh Asgary, Pardis Mohammadipour, Nizal Sarrafzadegan, César de Oliveira, Érika Aparecida Silveira

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Medicinal Natural Products · 2025
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPhytochemicals and Medicinal Plants
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsClinical trialMeta-analysisAdverse effectOverweightMEDLINERandomized controlled trialBody mass indexSystematic review

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Obesity is a progressively serious universal health problem requiring an impressive treatment alternative. Triphala and Triphala Guggul, which include Guggul resin, are traditional therapies suggested for controlling obesity. Their advantage however, has not yet been examined in depth in clinical trials. Methods: A systematic review and meta-analysis of controlled trials was run in accordance with PRISMA guidelines. Three main databases (PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science) together with Google Scholar were searched up to July 2025. Eligibility was limited to controlled trials including overweight adults or patients with obesity that examine Triphala or Triphala Guggul in comparison with control interventions. Facts on body weight, body mass index, and other anthropometric measures were adapted. The quality of included studies was assessed using a modified Oxford Quality Score System (OQSS), and the risk of bias was evaluated using the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool. Random-effects meta-analysis was accomplished using RevMan 5.4 and Stata 17. Results: Fifteen studies (10 Triphala, 5 Triphala Guggul) with 800 contributors were included. Meta-analysis of five studies on oral Triphala administration reveals a statistically significant decline in body weight (mean difference = −2.4 kg, 95% CI: −4.2 to −0.6, p = 0.01), though with high heterogeneity (I2 = 91%). The effect on body mass index was not statistically significant (p = 0.09). Topical applications did not result in notable effects. Both formulations were well-tolerated with no serious adverse events documented, except for the infrequent occurrence of hypersensitivity skin reactions. Methodological quality was variable, with a third of the studies rated as low quality. Conclusions: Oral short term consumption of Triphala led to a reduction in body weight accross individuals with obesity, although its efficacy for body mass index remains indecisive. Topical administration did not exhibit significant profit. Oral Triphala becomes visible to be a safe complementary supplementation for obesity in a short period; however, the evidence is inconsistent due to variability in study quality and outcomes. Advanced highquality, long-term studies are required to ensure effectiveness, optimal dosing, and long-term safety.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.035
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.169
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Meta-epidemiology (narrow), Meta-epidemiology (broad)
Consensus categoriesMetaresearch
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.579
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0350.169
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0390.005
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.156
GPT teacher head0.490
Teacher spread0.334 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designSystematic review
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

Citations1
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Medicinal Natural ProductsSame topicPhytochemicals and Medicinal PlantsFrench-language works237,207