4.7 Article

Garlic for hypertension: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Journal

PHYTOMEDICINE
Volume 22, Issue 3, Pages 352-361

Publisher

ELSEVIER GMBH
DOI: 10.1016/j.phymed.2014.12.013

Keywords

Garlic; Hypertension; Blood pressure; Randomized controlled trial; Systematic review

Funding

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [81403375]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background: In the past decade, garlic has become one of the most popular complementary therapies for blood pressure (BP) control used by hypertensive patients. Numerous clinical studies have focused on the BP-lowering effect of garlic, but results have been inconsistent Overall, there is a dearth of information available to guide the clinical community on the efficacy of garlic in hypertensive patients. Aim: To systematically review the medical literature to investigate the current evidence of garlic for the treatment of hypertension. Methods: PubMed, the Cochrane Library and EMBASE were searched for appropriate articles from their respective inceptions until August 2014. Randomized, placebo-controlled trials comparing garlic vs, a placebo in patients with hypertension were considered. Papers were independently reviewed by two reviewers and were analyzed using Cochrane software Revman 5.2. Results: A total of seven randomized, placebo-controlled trials were identified. Compared with the placebo, this meta-analysis revealed a significant lowering effect of garlic on both systolic BP (WMD: -6.71 mmHg; 95 CI: -12.44 to -0.99; P = 0.02) and diastolic BP (WMD: -4.79 mmHg: 95% CI : -6.60 to -2.99; P < 0.00001). No serious adverse events were reported in any of the trials. Couclusion: The present review suggests that garlic is an effective and safe approach for hypertension. However, more rigorously designed randomized controlled trials focusing on primary endpoints with longterm follow-up are still warranted before garlic can be recommended to treat hypertensive patients. (C) 2015 Elsevier GmbH. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available