Evidence Hub

Cardioprotective effect of curcumin on myocardial ischemia/reperfusion injury: a meta-analysis of preclinical animal studies

Yi-Fan Zeng, Qihao Guo, Xingyu Wei, Si-yu Chen, Sheng Deng, Ji-Jia Liu, Ni Yin, Yan Liu et al.

Frontiers in Pharmacology, 2023

27 citations

Abstract

Objective: This meta-analysis aimed to determine the efficacy of curcumin in preventing myocardial ischemia/reperfusion (I/R) injury in animal models. Methods: Studies published from inception to January 2023 were systematically searched in databases including PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, China’s National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), Wan-Fang database, and VIP database (VIP). The SYRCLE’s RoB tool was used to determine methodological quality. Sensitivity analysis and subgroup analysis were performed when there was high heterogeneity. Publication bias was assessed using a funnel plot. Results: Thirty-seven studies involving 771 animals were included in this meta-analysis with methodology quality scores ranging from 4 to 7. The results indicated that curcumin treatment significantly improved myocardial infarction size standard mean difference (SMD) = −5.65; 95% confidence interval (CI): 6.94, −4.36; p < 0.01; I2 = 90%). The sensitivity analysis for infarct size showed that the results were stable and reliable. However, the funnel plot was asymmetric. The subgroup analysis included species, animal model, dose, administration, and duration. The results showed that the subgroup dose was statistically significant between subgroups. In addition, curcumin treatment improved cardiac function, myocardial injury enzymes, and oxidative stress levels in animal models of myocardial I/R injury. The funnel plot revealed that there is publication bias for creatine kinase and lactate…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a meta-analysis, done in animal, not in people. Its evidence level is 5 of 5 (Very low · case / narrative / animal / in vitro / in silico). Case reports, narrative reviews, and animal, cell or computer-model studies give the weakest evidence for human health.

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