Blood Pressure Monitor

Rodsarin Yamprasert et al. (2020) · BMC complementary medicine and therapies

This randomized, double-blind, controlled trial with 80 adults (ages 18-70, about 70% female) compared ginger (Zingiber officinale) extract against loratadine, a standard non-drowsy antihistamine, for allergic rhinitis (AR) -- an immune reaction to airborne allergens that causes nasal itching, congestion, runny nose, and sneezing, affecting an estimated 400 million people worldwide. Ginger is a spice long used in Thai traditional medicine, and its active compounds 6-gingerol and 6-shogaol have shown anti-allergic activity in lab studies by blocking mast cells, the immune cells that release histamine during an allergic reaction. Antihistamines like loratadine work well but can cause drowsiness and dry mouth. Participants with moderate AR symptoms took either 500 mg of standardized ginger extract or 10 mg of loratadine daily, in identical-looking capsules, for 6 weeks. Researchers tracked nasal symptoms using the Total Nasal Symptom Score (TNSS, rating itching, runny nose, congestion, and sneezing on a 0-12 scale), objectively measured nasal airway size with acoustic rhinometry (a sound-wave-based nasal scan), and assessed quality of life with the 28-item Rhinoconjunctivitis Quality of Life Questionnaire (RQLQ). Blood tests and blood pressure checks monitored safety at baseline, week 3, and week 6. Both treatments significantly reduced nasal symptom scores by week 6 (ginger: 7.48 to 3.42; loratadine: 7.38 to 4.11), with no statistically significant difference between them (p=0.276--meaning both worked about equally well). On the nasal airway scan, ginger significantly increased left-nostril airway volume compared to loratadine by week 6 (+0.094 cm3 vs -0.006 cm3, p=0.02--meaning ginger measurably relieved congestion where loratadine did not). Quality-of-life scores improved similarly in both groups across all seven RQLQ domains (p=0.660 at week 6). Side effects differed in kind more than in severity: ginger caused more digestive upset (eructation, or burping, in 72% vs 17% on loratadine), while loratadine caused more drowsiness (25% vs 3%), dizziness, and constipation. Neither treatment affected blood pressure or kidney function; loratadine modestly raised a liver enzyme (ALP) that ginger did not. These results suggest ginger extract works about as well as loratadine for relieving AR symptoms and improving quality of life, with a milder side-effect profile centered on digestion rather than sedation. The trial was short (6 weeks), single-site, and modestly sized (80 enrolled, 72 completing), so larger and longer studies are needed to confirm both the congestion benefit and long-term safety, including the loratadine-associated liver-enzyme signal seen here.

Göktuğ Er et al. (2023) · Medicine

This randomized comparative trial with 70 adults explored whether connective tissue massage (CTM) or classical massage (CM, the "Swedish" style widely used in clinics) works better for chronic mechanical low back pain -- pain and stiffness in the lower back lasting more than 12 weeks with no specific structural cause like fracture or infection. CTM manipulates the skin and underlying fascia with pulling strokes, thought to trigger reflex effects on the autonomic nervous system (the body's automatic regulator of heart rate, blood pressure, and circulation). CM instead strokes and kneads muscle tissue, releasing endorphins and stimulating vascular pressure receptors to ease pain and support autonomic balance. The study compared which method controls pain better and whether either shifts autonomic activity more. Fifty-five participants (28 in the CTM group, 27 in CM, average age around 37) completed the full protocol: a hot pack plus a lumbar stretching and strengthening routine, combined with 20 sessions of their assigned massage over four weeks, five days a week. Pain was tracked on a 10-cm visual analog scale (VAS) at baseline, weekly, post-treatment, and at a six-week follow-up. Heart rate, blood pressure, and skin temperature were measured with standard clinical devices, while disability, quality of life, and sleep quality were tracked with validated questionnaires (Oswestry Disability Index, SF-36, and the Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index). Both massages sharply reduced pain by the end of treatment and kept it low at six weeks (P < .001 for both, meaning the improvement is very unlikely to be chance). CM pulled ahead of CTM only briefly, at the two-week mark (1.90 vs 2.60 cm on the VAS, P = .04, a real but small and temporary difference), with no gap between the techniques at any other checkpoint. Peripheral skin temperature rose significantly in both groups (indicating improved circulation), but heart rate, blood pressure, and deeper trunk temperatures held steady in both. Disability, overall quality of life, and sleep quality all improved substantially and similarly in both groups; the one lasting difference was that CTM patients reported better emotional well-being at six weeks than CM patients (P = .03). No adverse events occurred with either technique. For practitioners and patients, the takeaway is reassuring rather than decisive: both CTM and CM are safe, effective options for chronic low back pain paired with heat and exercise, so the choice can rest on training, preference, or CTM's modest edge in longer-term mood rather than on a clear winner for pain relief. Limitations: one physiotherapist delivered every treatment and assessment (no blinding), the trial ran at a single center, and roughly one in five participants dropped out under the demanding five-day schedule. Future trials against a no-treatment control would clarify how much benefit comes from technique itself.

Saylee Deshmukh et al. (2025) · Frontiers in pharmacology

This systematic review and meta-analysis examined whether Ayurvedic treatments — herbs, traditional formulations, and purification procedures — can genuinely lower blood pressure in essential hypertension, the symptomless condition that drives much of the world's heart disease and stroke. Researchers screened over 22,000 records from six databases, including India's AYUSH Research Portal, and included 44 studies, with ten randomized controlled trials (524 participants) providing data strong enough to pool statistically. The interventions ranged widely: single herbs like Arjuna (Terminalia arjuna, Ayurveda's principal heart remedy), Rudraksha seed powder, and Eclipta alba extract; polyherbal and herbomineral formulations; and Panchakarma purification procedures such as therapeutic purgation. Treatment durations ran from 10 days to a full year. The meta-analysis compared Ayurveda against two benchmarks — placebo and standard blood-pressure drugs — using Cochrane methods with formal risk-of-bias assessment. The pooled answer was no significant difference either way. Versus placebo, systolic pressure fell a non-significant 2.63 mmHg (95% CI −6.04 to 0.79, p=0.13); versus standard drugs the gap was essentially zero (−0.22 mmHg, p=0.47) — Ayurveda neither beat the drugs nor clearly lost to them. Heterogeneity was extreme (I² up to 98%), meaning the trials disagreed sharply: two of three placebo-controlled and five of eight drug-controlled trials individually favored Ayurveda, while others favored the comparator. Uncontrolled before-after studies showed large drops of 16–29 mmHg, but those designs cannot separate treatment effects from regression to the mean. No adverse events were reported where safety was tracked. The honest takeaway on Ayurvedic care for high blood pressure: the tradition's safety record in these studies was good and some individual trials are promising, but pooled controlled evidence does not yet show blood-pressure reductions beyond placebo or medication. Given the risks of unmanaged hypertension, the review's own conclusion is that the evidence does not yet justify Ayurvedic approaches standing in for proven treatment.