The Effects of Red Yeast Rice Dietary Supplement on Blood Pressure, Lipid Profile and C-reactive Protein in Hypertension: A Systematic Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Interest is increasing regarding the potential health effects of red yeast rice (RYR) consumption, which is described as a "natural statin" in China. This review aims to evaluate the efficacy of RYR on blood pressure (BP), lipid profile, and C-reactive protein (CRP) in treating hypertension. Seven electronic databases including the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, EMBASE, PubMed, the Chinese National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), the Chinese Scientific Journal Database (VIP), the Chinese Biomedical Literature Database (CBM), and the Wanfang database were searched. To investigate the role of RYR for hypertension, randomized controlled trials for the use of RYR either as monotherapy or in combination with conventional medicine versus placebo, no intervention, or conventional medicine for hypertension were identified. A total of 21 trials containing 4558 patients were analyzed, the majority of which had low methodological quality. "RYR plus conventional therapy" exhibited significant lowering effects on serum total cholesterol (TC), low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C), and CRP but exhibited no significant effect on systolic BP, diastolic BP, triglycerides (TG), and high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL-C) compared with "placebo plus conventional therapy." "RYR plus conventional therapy" showed significant lowering effects on systolic BP, TC, LDL-C, and CRP but no effect on diastolic BP, TG, and HDL-C compared with "placebo plus conventional therapy." No significant difference in BP and lipid profile between "RYR plus conventional therapy" and "statins plus conventional therapy" was observed. "RYR plus statins" appeared to be more effective in lowering BP, TC, TG, and LDL-C but without a significant difference in HDL-C compared to statins. No serious adverse events were reported. The results of this meta-analysis suggested some supportive but limited evidence regarding RYR for hypertension. Further rigorously designed trials are warranted before RYR could be recommended to hypertensive patients.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.010 | 0.008 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".