Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 861

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 6 of the 6 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Systematic Review of Herbs and Dietary Supplements for Glycemic Control in Diabetes

Yeh, Gloria Y., Eisenberg, David M., Kaptchuk, Ted J., Phillips, Russell S.·2003·Diabetes Care

Abstract

OBJECTIVE—To conduct a systematic review of the published literature on the efficacy and safety of herbal therapies and vitamin/mineral supplements for glucose control in patients with diabetes. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS—We conducted an electronic literature search of MEDLINE, OLDMEDLINE, Cochrane Library Database, and HealthSTAR, from database inception to May 2002, in addition to performing hand searches and consulting with experts in the field. Available clinical studies published in the English language that used human participants and examined glycemic control were included. Data were extracted in a standardized manner, and two independent investigators assessed methodological quality of randomized controlled trials using the Jadad scale. RESULTS—A total of 108 trials examining 36 herbs (single or in combination) and 9 vitamin/mineral supplements, involving 4,565 patients with diabetes or impaired glucose tolerance, met the inclusion criteria and were analyzed. There were 58 controlled clinical trials involving individuals with diabetes or impaired glucose tolerance (42 randomized and 16 nonrandomized trials). Most studies involved patients with type 2 diabetes. Heterogeneity and the small number of studies per supplement precluded formal meta-analyses. Of these 58 trials, the direction of the evidence for improved glucose control was positive in 76% (44 of 58). Very few adverse effects were reported. CONCLUSIONS—There is still insufficient evidence to draw definitive conclusions about the efficacy of individual herbs and supplements for diabetes; however, they appear to be generally safe. The available data suggest that several supplements may warrant further study. The best evidence for efficacy from adequately designed randomized controlled trials (RCTs) is available for Coccinia indica and American ginseng. Chromium has been the most widely studied supplement. Other supplements with positive preliminary results include Gymnema sylvestre, Aloe vera, vanadium, Momordica charantia, and nopal.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.2337/diacare.26.4.1277

Cites

6 of 6 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 6 references

Cited by

See all 861

Metadata

Authors
Yeh, G. Y., Eisenberg, D. M., Kaptchuk, T. J., & Phillips, R. S.
Venue
Diabetes Care
Published
2003-04-01
Volume
26
Issue
4
Pages
1277-1294
ISSN
  • 0149-5992 (ISSN-L)
  • 1935-5548
OpenAlex
W2109221964
Cited by
861
References
6
FWCI
5.16
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Systematic Review of Herbs and Dietary Supplements for Glycemic Control in Diabetes. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.2337/diacare.26.4.1277
The paper
Yeh, G. Y., Eisenberg, D. M., Kaptchuk, T. J., & Phillips, R. S. (2003). Systematic Review of Herbs and Dietary Supplements for Glycemic Control in Diabetes. Diabetes Care. https://doi.org/10.2337/diacare.26.4.1277

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.