4.7 Article

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

期刊

PHYTOMEDICINE
卷 22, 期 3, 页码 352-361

出版社

ELSEVIER GMBH
DOI: 10.1016/j.phymed.2014.12.013

关键词

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

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [81403375]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

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.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据