Evidence Hub

Quantitative assessment of the effects of sumac (Rhus Coriaria) supplementation on cardiovascular disease risk factors: evidence from a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Huang H, He B, Zhou G, Cui Y, Pu R

BMC complementary medicine and therapies, 2025

1,170 participants

Abstract

Background: Cardiovascular disease (CVD) is a pressing public health issue worldwide. Accordingly, primary and secondary CVD prevention are essential. Many clinical trials have investigated the effects of sumac (Rhus Coriaria) supplementation on CVD risk factors (CVDRFs). However, these studies have yielded contradictory findings. This study aimed to conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) to comprehensively assess the impact of sumac supplementation on CVDRFs in human subjects.

Methods and materials: We searched the MEDLINE/PubMed, EMBASE, CENTRAL, and Web of Science to identify the relevant studies in any language until March 2025. RCTs that investigated the impact of sumac supplementation compared no sumac consumption or placebo capsule interventions or consumed substitutions containing no sumac on CVD outcomes in adults at least 2 weeks were included for data synthesis. The primary outcomes were the mean difference in lipid profiles, blood pressure, glycemic control, and anthropometric indices. Secondary outcomes were the mean difference in inflammatory and oxidative stress markers. The quality of the included trials was assessed using the Cochrane Risk-of-Bias tool. Effect sizes were calculated using a random effect model and presented as weighted mean differences and 95% confidence intervals (CIs), while the I2 index was utilized to assess between-study heterogeneity. To explore the potential sources of heterogeneity,…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a meta-analysis, done in people. Its evidence level is 1 of 5 (Highest · pooled evidence). Pooled evidence from several studies sits at the top of the evidence pyramid. Reported size: 1,170 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free