Skip to the main content
Open WellbeingWhat the studies actually measured

Inflammation and oxidative stress

Melatoninand 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

One source’s range, drawn against its own line of no difference and scaled to its own numbers.

-1.19-0.79 standardised effect size-0.39

This range stays on one side of the no-difference line.

Bar the confidence interval — the range the true effect is likely to sit inNotch the number the source reportedLine where there would be no difference at all

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.

  • Systematic review, 2020

    Very low certainty, level 1 of 4

    Effect of melatonin supplementation on oxidative stress parameters: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

    Pharmacol Res. 2020;161:105210. doi:10.1016/j.phrs.2020.105210. PMID:33007423.

    Number reported
    -0.79 standardised effect size
    Which way it went
    Lower
    Likely range
    -1.19 to -0.39
    Source’s own words
    standardized mean difference in malondialdehyde vs placebo
    Who was studied
    Adult with chronic disease
    Compared with
    placebo
    Amount taken
    Not in the abstract
    For how long
    Not in the abstract
    Disagreement between studies
    I2 = 73.1 %
    Kind of record
    Journal article
    How this rating was reachedstarts at High, 4 steps down: risk of bias, indirectness, imprecision and inconsistency
    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 does not state how many participants were pooledNot in the abstract
    5. Inconsistency — already at Very low, the lowest rungheterogeneity across pooled studies is high (I² = 73.1%)Reported in the abstract
    6. Ends at Very low4 steps down.

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

    AI-reviewed & signed — an AI agent re-read this finding against the saved source and checked that the quote, the numbers, the units and the direction match it. No person read it. The owner authorised the agent to sign the batch with the owner's key, and every build rechecks that signature against these exact bytes.

    Read the abstract on PubMed

What is still missing from these readings

  • One do not say how many people took part.
  • Amount taken — Not in the abstract.
  • For how long — Not in the abstract.

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

Still to read for Melatonin

Two of the ten things on our list for Melatonin have no reading here yet:

  • Body Temperature
  • Serum cortisol (morning)

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.