Skip to the main content
Open WellbeingWhat the studies actually measured

Inflammation and oxidative stress

Glycineand Oxidative stress (F2-isoprostanes)

Only one source here so far, and it measured lower oxidative stress (F2-isoprostanes).

How sure anyone can be

Very low certainty, level 1 of 4

Any estimate here is very uncertain.

The numbers reported

-25 percent change
percent decrease in plasma TBARS vs placebo

None of these sources gave a likely range — the band the real answer probably sits in — so how precise these numbers are is still an open question 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, 2013 · 60 participants

    Very low certainty, level 1 of 4

    Oral supplementation with glycine reduces oxidative stress in patients with metabolic syndrome, improving their systolic blood pressure.

    Can J Physiol Pharmacol. 2013;91(10):855-60. doi:10.1139/cjpp-2012-0341. PMID:24144057.

    Number reported
    -25 percent change
    Which way it went
    Lower
    Likely range
    Not in the abstract
    Source’s own words
    percent decrease in plasma TBARS vs placebo
    Who was studied
    Adult with metabolic syndrome
    Compared with
    placebo
    Amount taken
    15,000 mg/d
    For how long
    90 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

  • One gives no likely range, so how precise that number is is unknown.

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

Still to read for Glycine

One of the seven things on our list for Glycine has no reading here yet:

  • Sleep onset latency

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.