Heart and blood pressure
Potassiumand Diastolic blood pressure
Both sources here measured lower diastolic blood pressure.
How sure anyone can be
Low certainty, level 2 of 4Further research is likely to change this.
The most certain of the two findings here; each record carries its own.
The numbers reported
One source’s range, drawn against its own line of no difference and scaled to its own numbers.
-3.06-1.96 mmHg-0.86
This range stays on one side of the no-difference line.
Two sources, 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, 2017
Very low certainty, level 1 of 4Oral potassium supplementation for management of essential hypertension: A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.
PLoS One. 2017;12(4):e0174967. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0174967. PMID:28419159.
- Number reported
- -2.53 mmHg
- Which way it went
- Lower
- Likely range
- -4.05 to -1.02
- Source’s own words
- mmHg diastolic blood pressure mean difference vs placebo
- Who was studied
- Adult with hypertension
- Compared with
- placebo
- Amount taken
- Not in the abstract
- For how long
- 28 days (upper bound: Not in the abstract)
- Disagreement between studies
- I2 = 65%
- Kind of record
- Journal article
How this rating was reachedstarts at High, 3 steps down: risk of bias, imprecision and inconsistency
- Starts at High
- 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
- Imprecision brought it down to Lowthe abstract does not state how many participants were pooledNot in the abstract
- Inconsistency brought it down to Very lowheterogeneity across pooled studies is high (I² = 65%)Reported in the abstract
- Ends at Very low3 steps down.
- Checked, nothing to step it down for
- indirectness
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.
Systematic review, 2013
Low certainty, level 2 of 4Effect of increased potassium intake on cardiovascular risk factors and disease: systematic review and meta-analyses.
BMJ. 2013;346:f1378. doi:10.1136/bmj.f1378. PMID:23558164.
- Number reported
- -1.96 mmHg
- Which way it went
- Lower
- Likely range
- -3.06 to -0.86
- Source’s own words
- mmHg diastolic blood pressure mean difference vs control
- Who was studied
- Adult
- Compared with
- control
- Amount taken
- Not in the abstract
- For how long
- Not in the abstract
- Disagreement between studies
- Not in the abstract
- Kind of record
- Journal article
How this rating was reachedstarts at High, 2 steps down: risk of bias and imprecision
- Starts at High
- 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
- Imprecision brought it down to Lowthe abstract does not state how many participants were pooledNot in the abstract
- Ends at Low2 steps down.
- Checked, nothing to step it down for
- indirectness
- Inconsistency
- No disagreement reported, and no count of studies behind it
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.
What is still missing from these readings
- Two do not say how many people took part.
- Amount taken — Not in the abstract.
- For how long — One of Two readings: Not in the abstract.
Something nobody wrote down is never a zero and never a guess.
Still to read for Potassium
One of the seven things on our list for Potassium has no reading here yet:
- Potassium
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
Potassium
Five other questions read for it
Heart and blood pressure
49 questions read under it
Diastolic blood pressure
14 other ingredients read against it
First six, alphabetical, and by nothing else. The rest are on Heart and blood pressure.
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.