Skip to the main content
Open WellbeingWhat the studies actually measured

Blood sugar and insulin

Silymarinand Hemoglobin A1c

Both sources here measured lower hemoglobin A1c.

How sure anyone can be

Low certainty, level 2 of 4

Further 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.

-1.27-0.85 percentage points-0.43

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

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, 2024

    Low certainty, level 2 of 4

    Impacts of Supplementation with Silymarin on Cardiovascular Risk Factors: A Systematic Review and Dose-Response Meta-Analysis.

    Antioxidants (Basel). 2024;13(4). doi:10.3390/antiox13040390. PMID:38671838.

    Number reported
    -0.85 percentage points
    Which way it went
    Lower
    Likely range
    -1.27 to -0.43
    Source’s own words
    percentage points HbA1c, weighted mean difference vs untreated control (the abstract prints the unit as %)
    Who was studied
    Adult
    Compared with
    untreated counterparts (control groups across 33 trials)
    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
    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. Imprecision brought it down to Lowthe abstract does not state how many participants were pooledNot in the abstract
    4. 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.

    Read the abstract on PubMed

  • Systematic review, 2016

    Low certainty, level 2 of 4

    Silymarin in Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.

    J Diabetes Res. 2016;2016:5147468. doi:10.1155/2016/5147468. PMID:27340676.

    Number reported
    -1.07
    Which way it went
    Lower
    Likely range
    -1.73 to -0.4
    Source’s own words
    HbA1c mean difference vs control (percentage points; the abstract states no unit)
    Who was studied
    Adult with type 2 diabetes
    Compared with
    control
    Amount taken
    Not in the abstract
    For how long
    Not in the abstract
    Disagreement between studies
    elevated heterogeneity of these studies (I2 not given in abstract)
    Kind of record
    Journal article
    How this rating was reachedstarts at High, 2 steps down: risk of bias and imprecision
    1. Starts at High
    2. Risk of bias brought it down to Moderatethe abstract's own appraisal reports serious study limitationsReported in the abstract
    3. Imprecision brought it down to Lowthe abstract does not state how many participants were pooledNot in the abstract
    4. 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.

    Read the abstract on PubMed

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 — Not in the abstract.

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

Nothing left on our list for Silymarin

All 11 things on our list for Silymarin have been read. That is rare here.

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.