Improvement after a supplement is not the same as a comparative result
Start with the comparison. A before-and-after change alone cannot isolate the contribution of an ingredient.
Lemon Balm
Selected research topic
Blood pressure and vascular health
Some measured outcomes improved in human comparison studies. Read these findings with their populations and conditions.
Some findings concern patients or people with a deficiency.
- Publications for this topic
- 3
- Human comparison publications
- 2
- Publications needing review
- 1
Findings in the studies
Blood pressure
- Comparison result:A better result than the comparison group was reported.Patient group · Single ingredient
Measurement and study conditions
- Controlled human study
- Randomized trial
- Single ingredient
- Patient group
- Outcome role not specified
- Between-group comparison
- Timepoint: unspecified
- Study comparison: unspecified
- Comparison result:A better result than the comparison group was reported.Patient group · Single ingredient · Four weeks
Measurement and study conditions
- Other evidence
- Clinical trial
- Single ingredient
- Patient group
- Primary outcome
- Between-group comparison
- Timepoint: Four weeks
- Study comparison: Melissa officinalis extract versus Echium amoenum and control
This result is held for interpretation. That does not mean research found no effect.
Outcome groups needing additional review (1)
- systolic blood pressure · Distinct papers needing additional review: 1Evidence criteria check: 1
One paper can appear under multiple measured outcomes or review reasons, so these counts should not be added together.
Representative outcome and study details
Human studies reported between-group improvement in Blood pressure.
These conditions come from related studies and may not describe a single paper.
Single-ingredient studies · Human studies · Includes patient groups · between-group comparison
2 publications linked to this result
- Study conditions differ; results are shown descriptively and are not pooled.
Data coverage and detailed study classifications
Paper counts are separated by research topic below. One paper may contribute to multiple findings.
Analysis status: Public-ready
Ingredient analysis date:
How the grade was determined: C
The 33.5 evidence score includes 1 independent human studies and 1 clinical studies in the representative benefit area. The C tier remains conservative because of limited repetition across independent human clinical studies, too few clinical findings with an explicit effect direction.
The grade is based mainly on the research area with the most evidence. It does not mean the same result was found in other areas.
Papers linked to this ingredient overall: 58
Papers linked to this topic 3 · distinct papers 3 · papers with a confirmed human comparison 2 · papers needing additional review 1
A publication may appear in more than one count. These numbers should not be added. Ingredient-wide papers, topic-linked papers, and sources in outcome groups use different scopes. Adding source counts may count the same paper more than once.
- Blood pressure: Sources represented in this measurement group: 2 · Distinct papers with human comparisons for this outcome: 2
- systolic blood pressure: Sources represented in this measurement group: 1 · Distinct papers with human comparisons for this outcome: 0
What the research found
Blood pressure
The study reported improvement in this measurement.
Controlled study in people · Single ingredient · Patient group
Between-group comparison
Analysis coverage and paper counts
1 paper · 1 measured outcome
Direction counts are distinct papers within each row. Outcome contributions count endpoint results, so one paper may contribute more than once.
blood pressure
The study reported improvement in this measurement.
Other evidence · Single ingredient · Patient group
Between-group comparison
Analysis coverage and paper counts
1 paper · 1 measured outcome
Direction counts are distinct papers within each row. Outcome contributions count endpoint results, so one paper may contribute more than once.
systolic blood pressure
The study needs further checking before its result can be interpreted.
Meta-analysis · Single ingredient · Unspecified population
The comparison could not be confirmed.
Analysis coverage and paper counts
1 paper · 1 measured outcome
1 papers held from direction counts
Review overlap with primary papers is unknown; counts stay separate.
Direction counts are distinct papers within each row. Outcome contributions count endpoint results, so one paper may contribute more than once.
How to read research findings
How should I read research findings?
Research guidesNo clear difference and an uninterpretable result are different
A reported null comparison contains a result. An abstract without an interpretable comparison leaves a question unresolved.
Paper counts and study counts are different
Count original research separately from research that reanalyzes it. Publication volume is neither replication nor a quality rating.
Side effects and combination findings
Findings from this ingredient alone are shown separately from those involving another supplement or medication.
No reviewed caution rules are available yet. Reported caution findings are shown below.
Findings to review with care
Side effects reported for the ingredient alone are separated from findings involving another supplement or medication.
Side effects reported with this ingredient alone
Symptoms or adverse events reported in studies without another active ingredient.
LD501 papers
Acute oral toxicity of lemon balm essential oil in BALB/c mice showed significant behavioral, biochemical, and pathological changes at doses >1 g kg‑1, with an LD50 of 2.57 g kg‑1.Animal studies · Animal study