Skip to the main content
Open WellbeingWhat the studies actually measured

Long-term health and immunity

Boswellia serrataand Forced Expiratory Volume 1s (FEV1)

Only one source here so far, and it measured higher forced Expiratory Volume 1s (FEV1).

How sure anyone can be

Very low certainty, level 1 of 4

Any estimate here is very uncertain.

The numbers reported

No number has been put on this yet. One source recorded only which way the numbers went — for now, that is all we have here.

One source, newest first

What we read is the published abstract, not the full paper, so a blank below may still be printed in the paper itself. A fixed rule worked this out from the source’s own fields. Nobody checked this rating by hand.

  • Randomised trial, 1998

    Very low certainty, level 1 of 4

    Effects of Boswellia serrata gum resin in patients with bronchial asthma: results of a double-blind, placebo-controlled, 6-week clinical study.

    Eur J Med Res. 1998;3(11):511-4. PMID:9810030.

    Number reported
    Not in the abstract
    Which way it went
    Higher
    Likely range
    Not in the abstract
    Source’s own words
    FEV1 change not quantified in the abstract; only a composite responder rate is given (70% of treated vs 27% of control patients improved)
    Who was studied
    Adult with bronchial asthma
    Compared with
    placebo (lactose)
    Amount taken
    900 mg/d (300 mg three times daily)
    For how long
    42 days
    Disagreement between studies
    Not in the abstract
    Kind of record
    Journal article
    How this rating was reachedstarts at High, 3 steps down: risk of bias, indirectness and imprecision
    1. Starts at High
    2. Risk of bias brought it down to Moderatethe abstract reports no risk-of-bias or quality appraisal, so study limitations cannot be ruled outNot in the abstract
    3. Indirectness brought it down to Lowthe outcome measured is a proxy for the target outcomeReported in the abstract
    4. Imprecision brought it down to Very lowthe abstract reports no confidence interval for the estimateNot in the abstract
    5. Ends at Very low3 steps down.
    Inconsistency
    One study, so there was nothing to disagree

    Imprecision stops at the first check that applies; others may apply too.

    AI review could not confirm it — an AI agent re-read this finding against the saved source and at least one check failed. The batch record names the check and quotes the sentence that caused the doubt. No person read it.

    Read the abstract on PubMed

What is still missing from these readings

  • No number at all, only which way it went.
  • One gives no likely range, so how precise that number is is unknown.
  • One do not say how many people took part.

Something nobody wrote down is never a zero and never a guess.

Still to read for Boswellia serrata

Eight of the 13 things on our list for Boswellia serrata have no reading here yet:

  • Alanine aminotransferase (ALT)
  • Equivalent Walking Distance
  • Erythrocyte Sedimentation Rate (ESR)
  • Forced Vital Capacity (FVC)
  • Hemoglobin
  • Peak Expiratory Flow Rate
  • Physical Function Score (SF-36 Physical Functioning)
  • Serum creatinine

Still to read means nobody here has got to it, not that it was tried and did nothing or that no research exists. A pairing on no list is not a gap: we never set out to read it.

Read next

This is a library, not advice. No recommendation, no dose, no diagnosis, no ranking. We never ask about your symptoms, and nothing here is tailored to you.