Skip to main content
Download PDF

Clinical effects of Emblica officinalis fruit consumption on cardiovascular disease risk factors: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BMC Complementary Medicine and Therapies volume 23, Article number: 190 (2023) Cite this article

Abstract

Background

Emblica officinalis (EO) fruit consumption has been found to have a beneficial effect on cardiovascular disease (CVD) physiological risk factors in preliminary clinical intervention trials; however, questions remain regarding the overall effectiveness of EO on CVD risk. The purpose of this systematic review and meta-analysis is to: 1) systematically describe the clinical research examining EO; and 2) quantitatively assess the effects of EO on CVD physiological risk factors.

Methods

The Pubmed, Embase, Web of Science, and Google Scholar electronic platforms were searched for relevant randomized controlled trials (RCTs) published until April 7, 2021. Studies were included if they involved adults (age ≥ 18 years) ingesting a form of EO fruit; included blood lipids, blood pressure, and/or inflammatory biomarkers as outcomes; had clearly defined intervention and control treatments with pre- and post-intervention data; were peer-reviewed; and were written in English. Studies were excluded if they compared EO with another risk reduction intervention without a usual care control group. RCTs were assessed for methodological quality using the Cochrane risk-of-bias version 2 (ROB2) tool, qualitatively described, and quantitatively evaluated using random and fixed effect meta-analysis models.

Results

A total of nine RCTs (n = 535 participants) were included for review. Included studies followed parallel-group (n = 6) and crossover (n = 3) designs, with EO dosage ranging from 500 mg/day to 1500 mg/day, and treatment duration ranging from 14 to 84 days. Meta-analyses revealed EO to have a significant composite effect at lowering low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C; Mean difference (MD) = -15.08 mg/dL [95% Confidence interval (CI) = -25.43 to -4.73], I2 = 77%, prediction interval = -48.29 to 18.13), very low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (VLDL-C; MD = -5.43 mg/dL [95% CI = -8.37 to -2.49], I2 = 44%), triglycerides (TG; MD = -22.35 mg/dL [95% CI = -39.71 to -4.99], I2 = 62%, prediction interval = -73.47 to 28.77), and high-sensitivity C-reactive protein (hsCRP; MD = -1.70 mg/L [95% CI = -2.06 to -1.33], I2 = 0%) compared with placebo.

Conclusions

Due to statistical and clinical heterogeneity in the limited number of clinical trials to date, the promising effects of EO on physiologic CVD risk factors in this review should be interpreted with caution. Further research is needed to determine if EO offers an efficacious option for primary or secondary prevention of CVD as either monotherapy or adjunct to evidence-based dietary patterns and/or standard pharmacotherapy.

Peer Review reports

Background

Cardiovascular disease (CVD) is the leading cause of death globally, accounting for ~ 17.8 million deaths annually [1]. Mortality associated with CVD is expected to increase to > 22.2 million per year by 2030 [2]. Due to increasing prevalence, further efforts are required for both primary and secondary prevention of CVD. Aging demographics combined with improved survival post-cardiovascular event contribute to the growing pool of individuals living with established CVD [3]. Secondary prevention of subsequent events via improvement in modifiable CVD risk factors can help reduce morbidity and mortality in this growing population [3].

Modifiable risk factors associated with CVD are both behavioural and physiological. Research indicates a linear progression of risk factors leading to CVD, beginning with unhealthy lifestyle behaviours (e.g., physical inactivity, poor nutritional intake), leading to uncontrolled physiological risk factors, ultimately translating to CVD. Dyslipidemia, inflammation, and hypertension are common physiological risk factors for developing CVD via the progression of atherosclerosis [1]. Evidence-based dietary patterns have been developed to improve CVD physiological risk factors, including the Dietary Approaches to Stop Hypertension (DASH) diet [4] and the Portfolio diet [5, 6]. Although these dietary interventions have been associated with improvement in physiological CVD risk factors, CVD remains a significant global health concern. Therefore, the identification of efficacious, safe, affordable, and convenient options for primary or secondary prevention of CVD as either monotherapy or adjunct to evidence-based dietary patterns and/or standard pharmacotherapy is essential [7]. Furthermore, metabolic syndrome is a multicomponent risk factor for CVD and type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) [1]. Metabolic syndrome is diagnosed when any three or more of the following five cardiometabolic risk factors are present: 1) hypertriglyceridemia, 2) decreased high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL-C), 3) hypertension, 4) hyperglycemia, or 5) central adiposity [1]. Metabolic syndrome increases the risk of CVD mortality and all-cause mortality even for those with metabolic syndrome without T2DM [8]. Therefore, a single agent with the ability to produce beneficial changes in multiple cardiometabolic risk factors would be ideal when treating patients living with metabolic syndrome.

Emblica officinalis (EO)—also known as Phyllanthus emblica, Indian gooseberry in English, Amla in Hindi, and Amalaki in Sanskrit [9]—is a 5-25 m tall deciduous tree, native to tropical and subtropical regions of India, Nepal, Sri Lanka, and throughout South-East Asia to southern China [10]. Although many components of the EO plant (e.g., root bark, stem bark, leaves) are traditionally used in Ayurveda, an Indian indigenous system of medicine, the edible fruit is typically used the most for health reasons [7]. EO berries are spherical and smooth, growing to 2-5 cm in diameter [11]. EO berries are initially pale green in colour, changing to yellow when mature [10]. EO fruit, and formulations incorporating EO fruit, have traditionally been used as dietary supplements to treat an abundance of health ailments, including fever, jaundice, anemia, cough, asthma, headache, dyspepsia, ophthalmic disorders, vomiting, leprosy, diabetes, and menorrhagia [9].

The phytoconstituents of EO fruit include many bioactive compounds including hydrolysable tannins (e.g., chebulinic acid, chebulagic acid, corilagin, punigluconin, pedunculagin, emblicanin A and B), alkaloids, phenols (e.g., gallic acid, ellagic acid, pyrogallol), amino acids, carbohydrates (e.g., pectin), vitamins (e.g., ascorbic acid), flavonoids (e.g., quercetin, kaempferol, rutin), and organic acids (e.g., citric acid) [12]. EO fruit is a rich source of ascorbic acid (vitamin C), with 470-680 mg per 100 g [9]. Vitamin C accounts for ~ 45–70% of the total antioxidant activity of the EO fruit, along with tannins (particularly punigluconin, pedunculagin, emblicanin A and B), flavonoids, and ellagic acid [11]. Furthermore, experimental research indicates the EO fruit to have antibacterial [13], antidiabetic [14], antidiarrheal [15], antihyperlipidemic [16, 17], antioxidant [18], antipyretic [19], anti-hyperthyroid [20], antitussive [21], antiulcer [22], chemopreventive [23], cognitive enhancing [24], gastroprotective [25], hepatoprotective [26], nephroprotective [27], skin antiaging [28], and wound healing [29] properties, among many others.

Preliminary clinical interventional trials have also shown promising results of EO fruit consumption on a variety of health conditions, including cardiovascular disease [9, 12, 30, 31]. Specifically, significant improvements in participant blood lipids and/or biomarkers of inflammation following consumption of EO fruit in various forms [32,33,34,35,36,37,38,39,40,41,42,43,44,45,46,47,48,49]. These initial studies have subsequently led to randomized controlled trials (RCTs) investigating the effects of EO on CVD physiological risk factors [50,51,52,53,54,55,56,57,58]. Thus, a body of evidence now exists on the effects of EO on physiological risk, however, these effects have not been systematically reviewed or meta-analyzed. The purpose of this systematic review and meta-analysis is to: 1) systematically describe the clinical research examining EO; and 2) quantitatively assess the effects of EO on CVD physiological risk factors, including blood lipids, blood pressure, and biomarkers of inflammation.

Methods

This systematic review and meta-analysis protocol was not registered; however, the reporting in this review follows the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRIMSA) guidelines [59].

Inclusion/exclusion criteria

Randomized controlled trials were included for review if they involved adults (age ≥ 18 years), with any diagnostic condition, ingesting a form of the EO fruit (no polyherbal formulations); physiological CVD risk factor outcomes used in clinical practice (e.g. blood lipids, blood pressure, and/or inflammatory biomarkers); had clear definitions of intervention and placebo control treatments, such as proprietary extract descriptions and placebo constituents; had pre- and post-intervention data; were published in a peer-reviewed journal; and were written in English. Studies were excluded if they compared EO with another risk reduction intervention without a usual care control group. Cross-over trials were considered appropriate and included in this review due to the temporary effect of EO consumption and the stability of the patient population’s health status [60].

Information sources/Search

The Pubmed, Embase, Web of Science, and Google Scholar electronic platforms were searched for relevant literature published up until April 7, 2021 using the search strategy detailed in Appendix A that was collaboratively developed with the university librarian. The Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews in addition to the electronic platforms were searched for relevant reviews on EO. The reference lists of all relevant papers and reviews were searched for additional studies.

Study selection

All results from the electronic search were imported into a systematic review management program [61]. After duplicates were removed, the title and abstract screening was performed by two study authors independently. If both authors deemed an abstract relevant, it moved on to the full text review; discrepancies in judgement were resolved via discussion and engagement of another reviewer. Full texts of relevant studies were read by two authors independently. Any discrepancy was discussed to determine final eligibility. Additional papers of interest found in reference lists were obtained and read to determine eligibility.

Data collection process

Data from relevant studies were extracted by the second author and tabulated for comparison. Extracted data included author(s), year, country, study design, sample size, participant characteristics (age, sex, medical diagnoses and medication information relevant to each study’s inclusion criteria, and anthropometric and physiological data), details of the intervention and control treatments, outcome measures, and key results. Outcome measures included blood lipids (total cholesterol [TC], triglycerides [TG], LDL-C, HDL-C, and very low-density lipoprotein cholesterol [VLDL-C]), blood pressure (systolic and diastolic), and inflammatory biomarkers (high-sensitivity C-reactive protein [hsCRP]).

Study risk of bias assessment

Methodological quality of each study was completed using version 2 of the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool (ROB2) [62]. The ROB2 tool consists of 5 domains for parallel studies and 6 domains for cross-over studies. These domains include risk of bias arising from the randomization process, due to deviations from intended interventions, due to missing outcome data, in measurement of the outcome, and selection of the reported result. The cross-over tool also includes risk of bias arising from period and carryover effects. For each domain, there is a series of signaling questions and response options include “yes”, “probably yes”, “probably no”, “no”, and “no information”. Each domain is then given a risk of bias judgement of low, some concern or high using a pre-determined algorithm.

Meta-analyses

Effect sizes were calculated for all outcome measures regardless of dosage. Study data were meta-analyzed using the mean difference (MD) for continuous data. The MD is used as a summary statistic to measure the absolute difference between the mean value in two groups when the outcome measures are made on the same scale [63]. If standard error of the mean was reported, it was converted to standard deviation by multiplying by the square root of the sample size [64]. Forest plots were used to visually display mean differences in outcomes between treatment and control groups for each study. The cross-over trials were analyzed as parallel trials when paired-analyses data and first period only data were not reported, which was the case for all cross-over trials [65].

The main analysis estimates the effect size of all interventions, regardless of dosage of EO on physiological risk factors. In the case where studies had two intervention groups, one receiving 500 mg/day and one receiving 1000 mg/day, the two intervention groups were combined as recommended in the Cochrane handbook [66]. This formula can be found in Appendix B. The meta-analyses estimated the pre-post effects immediately following the completion of the intervention. The I2 statistic was used to determine statistical heterogeneity. A random effects model was used if the I2 value was greater than 50%, signifying notable heterogeneity [67], otherwise a fixed effect model was used. Prediction intervals were reported for all random effects models to identify the range of true effect sizes and were calculated using a spreadsheet provided in Borenstein et al. [68]. All analyses were performed using RevMan 5.4 [69], at an alpha set at 0.05.

Results

The search yielded 310 results from Medline, 639 from Embase, and 790 from Web of Science. The PRISMA flow diagram is shown in Fig. 1. Only the first 200 results from Google Scholar were screened for any additional records as recommended by Bramer and colleagues [70]. After 450 duplicates were removed, the remaining 1297 abstracts were screened. Twenty-nine abstracts remained and their full texts were then assessed for eligibility. Nine studies were included in the descriptive synthesis and quantitative meta-analysis.

Fig. 1
figure 1

Selection process of studies examining the effects of EO fruit consumption on CVD risk factors [71, 72]. EO Emblica officinalis, CVD Cardiovascular disease, RCT Randomized controlled trial

Full size image

Study characteristics of the nine RCTs included for review are presented in Table 1. Overall, the sample sizes ranged between 12 [51, 58] and 150 [54] participants. Duration of treatment ranged between 14 [51, 58] and 84 [54,55,56,57] days. Seven of the RCTs were from India [50, 51, 54,55,56,57,58], one from Japan [53], and one from Iran [52]. Eight RCTs were double-blinded (i.e., participants and researcher) [50, 51, 53,54,55,56,57,58] and one RCT was triple-blinded (i.e., participants, researcher, and data analyzer) [52]. Six RCTs were of parallel-group design [50, 52, 54,55,56,57], while the remaining three were of crossover design [51, 53, 58]. All nine RCTs recruited adults (age range 20–74 years). Participant recruitment for each RCT were healthy males [51, 58]; healthy males and females [53]; male smokers [50]; males and females with dyslipidemia [55], T2DM [56], metabolic syndrome [57], uncontrolled hypertension [52], and essential hypertension [54].

Table 1 Study characteristics
Full size table

The methodological quality of all 9 RCTs, including the cross-over studies, were assessed using the ROB2 tool [62]. Of the parallel RCTS, five studies [52, 54,55,56,57] had an overall risk of some concern, and one [50] had a high risk of bias arising from the randomization process. All the cross-over studies [51, 53, 58] had an overall risk of some concern. Figures 2 and 3 show a detailed account of the risk of bias across each domain for the parallel and cross-over studies, respectively. All three cross-over studies [51, 53, 58] showed appropriate cross-over design. Two studies [53, 58] showed proper randomization order, while one study [51] was unclear because they did not describe the randomization method. None of the three cross-over studies explicitly discussed if there were any carry-over effects.

Fig. 2
figure 2

Cochrane Risk of Bias Assessments for parallel RCTS. Figure is generated using robvis [73]

Full size image
Fig. 3
figure 3

Cochrane Risk of Bias Assessments for cross-over RCTS. Figure is generated using robvis [73]

Full size image

In terms of study outcomes, seven RCTs measured serum TC, TG, HDL-C, and LDL-C [50, 52,53,54,55,56,57]; four investigated serum VLDL-C [50, 54,55,56]; five examined systolic and diastolic blood pressure [51,52,53,54, 58]; and five reported serum hsCRP [50, 54,55,56,57].

Eight RCTs treated participants with an aqueous EO fruit extract [50, 51, 53,54,55,56,57,58] and the remaining RCT used powdered EO fruit [52]. Emblica officinalis was taken orally in capsule form for all nine RCTs. Dosage was 500 mg/day [50, 51, 53, 56, 57], 1000 mg/day [54,55,56,57,58], and 1500 mg/day [52]. Emblica officinalis fruit consumption was well-tolerated, with no included RCT reporting any adverse event serious enough to result in premature discontinuation of the study.

Meta-analyses: Effect size by risk factor

The effects of EO ingestion on various CVD risk factors compared with placebo are presented in Fig. 4. Emblica officinalis ingestion had significant effects at lowering LDL-C (MD = -15.08 mg/dL [95% CI = -25.43 to -4.73]), I2 = 77%, prediction interval = -48.29 to 18.13, p = 0.004), VLDL-C (MD = -5.43 mg/dL [95% CI = -8.37 to -2.94], I2 = 44%, p = 0.0003), TG (MD = -22.35 mg/dL [95% CI = -39.71 to -4.99], I2 = 62%, prediction interval = -73.47 to 28.77, p = 0.01), and hsCRP (MD = -1.70 mg/L [95% CI = -2.06 to -1.33], I2 = 0%, p = 0. 00001). EO did not have a significant effect on HDL-C (MD = 2.09 mg/dL [95% CL = -0.91 to 5.08], I2 = 86%, prediction interval = -8.09 to 12.27, p = 0.17), SPB (MD = -2.75 mmHg [95% CL = -10.41 to 4.90], I2 = 96%, prediction interval = -30.93 to 25.43, p = 0.48) and DPB (MD = -0.83 mmHg [95% CL = -5.87 to 4.21], I2 = 89%, prediction interval = -19.09 to 17.43, p = 0.75). Many of the results show high statistical heterogeneity, where an I2 of 75% to 100% is reported as considerable heterogeneity [74]. The prediction intervals show there is a substantial range of effect size.

Fig. 4
figure 4

a Forest plot of seven studies comparing mean difference of LDL-C (mg/dL) between two groups. b Forest plot of three studies comparing mean difference of VLDL-C (mg/dL) between two groups. c Forest plot of seven studies comparing mean difference of HDL-C (mg/dL) between two groups. d Forest plot of six studies comparing mean difference of TG (mg/dL) between two groups. e Forest plot of four studies comparing mean difference of hsCRP (mg/L) between two groups. f Forest plot of five studies comparing mean difference of SBP (mmHg) between two groups. g Forest plot of five studies comparing mean difference of DBP (mmHg) between two groups. EO Emblica officinalis, LDL-C Low-density lipoprotein cholesterol, VLDL-C Very low-density lipoprotein cholesterol, HDL-C High-density lipoprotein cholesterol, TG Triglycerides, hsCRP High-sensitivity C-reactive protein, SBP Systolic blood pressure, DBP Diastolic blood pressure

Full size image

Discussion

This review estimated the effect of EO consumption on physiological CVD risk factors. Emblica officinalis consumption showed statistically significant improvements in LDL-C, VLDL-C, HDL-C, TG, and hsCRP compared with placebo.

Limitations

Considerable heterogeneity exists in the RCTs examining the effect of EO extract on CVD risk factors that have been published so far. There are marked variations in the participant inclusion criteria, baseline biochemical values, study design, and duration of treatment. The potential variation in proprietary extract preparation techniques between studies may have also influenced the findings. One RCT [52] did not use an extract but the dried raw EO fruit itself, which may exert a different effect at equal dosage relative to an extract. Commercial interest may limit the submission and subsequent publication of non-significant or opposing data regarding the alleged health benefits of EO. Relatively small sample sizes must also be taken into consideration, with three of the nine included RCTs containing only 12 [51, 58] or 13 [53] participants. There is also a limited number of included RCTs and neither funnel plots nor Eggar regression tests were completed due to insufficient sample size. Prediction intervals, which signify an absolute measure of heterogeneity, were provided for all random effects models to aid in the interpretation of the heterogeneity [68]. There is a limitation in the analysis of the cross-over trials given the limited availability of reported data. The analysis of cross-over trials as parallel trials does give rise to a unit-of-analysis error [65]. However, this analysis is conservative, and consequently the cross-over studies are underweighted [65]. According to the Friedewald equation, LDL-C is calculated as TC minus HDL-C minus VLDL-C [75]. Clinically, VLDL is often estimated as TG divided by 2.2 (if values are in mmol/L) or 5 (if values are in mg/dL) [75]. Although a higher serum HDL-C is considered protective against CVD, a higher HDL-C would contribute to a higher serum TC based on this equation, which is considered a risk factor for CVD. Therefore, the individual components of TC (e.g., LDL-C, HDL-C, VLDL-C, TG) may be more informative when assessing CVD risk compared with TC alone. Therefore, TC was not included in this review. Excluding non-English articles and not investigating safety in this review are additional limitations.

Dyslipidemia is a primary causal factor for the development of atherosclerosis and CVD [1]. Dyslipidemia refers to abnormally high serum TC (≥ 5.2 mmol/L or ≥ 200 mg/dL), LDL-C (≥ 3.4 mmol/L or ≥ 130 mg/dL), TG (≥ 1.7 mmol/L or ≥ 150 mg/dL), or low serum HDL-C (< 1.0 mmol/L or < 40 mg/dL) [1]. For every 1.0 mmol/L (38.67 mg/dL) reduction in LDL-C there is a 20–22% relative risk reduction for the development of CVD [76]. High-density lipoprotein cholesterol is thought to counteract the atherosclerotic process by inhibiting the oxidization of LDL-C and removing cholesterol from foam cells (i.e., lipid-laden macrophages within the arterial tunica intima) for transportation back to the liver [50]. Non-HDL-C includes chylomicron remnants, VLDL-C, intermediate-density lipoprotein cholesterol, lipoprotein(a), and LDL-C [76]. The components of non-HDL-C are atherogenic, apolipoprotein B-100 (Apo B) containing lipoproteins [76]. Emblica officinalis showed improvements in components of non-HDL-C in this review.

The mechanisms of how EO may exert its beneficial effects on lipid profile are not fully elucidated. Proposed mechanisms include interference of cholesterol absorption [77]; inhibition of hepatic 3-hydroxy-3-methylglutaryl coenzyme-A (HMG-CoA) reductase activity, resulting in decreased cholesterol synthesis [78]; and increase in lecithin‑cholesterol acyltransferase (LCAT) activity, resulting in greater cholesterol transfer to HDL for transport to liver for hepatic degradation and biliary excretion [78]. Increased transfer of cholesterol to HDL from other sources (e.g., LDL) via upregulation of lipoprotein transfer enzymes and/or proteins may partially explain the tendency for EO to increase HDL-C with a concurrent decrease in non-HDL-C components [33]. Emblica officinalis may be an addition to established dietary interventions to combat dyslipidemia such as the Portfolio diet, or adjunct to standard pharmacotherapy such as HMG-CoA reductase inhibitors.

HMG-CoA reductase inhibitors, also known as statins, are a class of medication widely prescribed to treat dyslipidemia, especially to lower serum LDL-C [1]. Statins lower cholesterol via inhibition of hepatic HMG-CoA reductase, the rate-limiting enzyme of cholesterol biosynthesis [76]. Reported side effects of statin use include myopathy, hepatotoxicity, and cephalgia [56]. Several clinical trials have compared the effect of EO and statins on blood lipids [35, 36, 56]. These trials reported similar improvements in lipids after a 500 – 1000 mg/day dose of EO and an initial dose (10 – 20 mg/day) of standard statin pharmacotherapy. However, only Usharani and colleagues [56] met inclusion criteria for this review (Table 1). No serious adverse events were reported in the EO or statin groups for the duration of these clinical trials.

C-reactive protein (CRP) is a non-specific biomarker of inflammation. Elevated hsCRP (≥ 2 mg/L) has been associated with atherosclerosis and CVD [1, 76]. However, it remains uncertain whether CRP is directly involved in the progression of atherosclerosis or simply a consequence of the atherosclerotic process [56]. Oxidative stress via accumulation of reactive oxygen species (ROS) may reduce the bioavailability of nitric oxide and result in endothelial dysfunction and vascular inflammation. Excess ROS may also increase the conversion of LDL-C to oxidized LDL-C, further exacerbating the inflammatory cascade [57]. The anti-inflammatory properties of EO—as demonstrated by the significant reduction in hsCRP in this meta-analysis—may be explained by the large antioxidant capacity and ROS scavenging ability of the fruit [56]. This antioxidant capacity is partially attributed to the relatively high ascorbic acid and ellagitannin content [53]. The EO fruit is rich source of ellagitannins—such as chebulagic acid, pedunculagin, geraniin, corilagin, elaeocarpusin—which are hydrolysable to ellagic acid and gallic acid [53]. The complex and potentially synergistic interactions between the various EO phytochemicals may also enhance the antioxidant capacity of the fruit [53].

Conclusions

Emblica officinalis has beneficial effects on LDL-C, VLDL-C, HDL-C, TG, and hsCRP that are statistically significant; however, due to small sample size and heterogeneity (clinical and statistical), these results should be interpreted with caution. Further research on the clinical effects of EO is necessary. Additional large RCTs are required to confirm these results and identify the most efficacious dose and form of EO in various patient populations. Potential sex differences should also be explored. The mechanism of action requires further investigation as the many bioactive phytochemicals of the fruit appear to exert individual beneficial effects and the potential to interact synergistically. These complex, potentially synergistic interactions may favour consumption of the whole EO fruit as opposed to proprietary extracts of the fruit, where some of the bioactive phytochemicals may be lost or altered during the extraction process. However, this is speculatory and requires clinical validation involving minimally processed preparations of EO that can still be effectively blinded and placebo controlled. For example, dried EO fruit powder ingested via capsule. Emblica officinalis may offer an efficacious, affordable, and convenient option for primary or secondary prevention of CVD as either monotherapy or adjunct to evidence-based dietary patterns and/or standard pharmacotherapy.

Availability of data and materials

All data supporting this systematic review and meta-analysis are from published randomized controlled trials that have been cited in this article.

Abbreviations

Apo B:

Apolipoprotein B-100

CRP:

C-reactive protein

CVD:

Cardiovascular disease

DASH:

Dietary Approaches to Stop Hypertension

EO:

Emblica officinalis

HDL-C:

High-density lipoprotein cholesterol

HMG-CoA:

Hepatic 3-hydroxy-3-methylglutaryl coenzyme-A

hsCRP:

High-sensitivity C-reactive protein

LCAT:

Lecithin‑cholesterol acyltransferase

LDL-C:

Low-density lipoprotein cholesterol

MD:

Mean difference

PRISMA:

Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses

RCTs:

Randomized controlled trials

ROB2:

Risk of Bias 2 Assessment Tool

ROS:

Reactive oxygen species

T2DM:

Type 2 diabetes mellitus

TC:

Total cholesterol

TG:

Triglycerides

VLDL-C:

Very low-density lipoprotein cholesterol

References

  1. Virani SS, Alonso A, Benjamin EJ, Bittencourt MS, Callaway CW, Carson AP, et al. Heart disease and stroke statistics-2020 update: A report from the American Heart Association. Circulation. 2020;141:e139–596.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. World Health Organization. Global Status Report on Noncommunicable Diseases. 2014. https://www.who.int/nmh/publications/ncd-status-report-2014/en/. Accessed June 2, 2021.

  3. Bansilal S, Castellano JM, Fuster V. Global burden of CVD: focus on secondary prevention of cardiovascular disease. Int J Cardiol. 2015;201(S1):S1-7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Filippou CD, Tsioufis CP, Thomopoulos CG, Mihas CC, Dimitriadis KS, Sotiropoulou LI, et al. Dietary approaches to stop hypertension (DASH) diet and blood pressure reduction in adults with and without hypertension: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Adv Nutr. 2020;11(5):1150–60.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  5. Chiavaroli L, Nishi SK, Khan TA, Braunstein CR, Glenn AJ, Mejia SB, et al. Portfolio dietary pattern and cardiovascular disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis of controlled trials. Prog Cardiovasc Dis. 2018;61(1):43–53.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Jenkins DJA, Jones PJH, Lamarche B, Kendall CWC, Faulkner D, Cermakova L, et al. Effect of a dietary portfolio of cholesterol-lowering foods given at 2 levels of intensity of dietary advice on serum lipids in hyperlipidemia: a randomized controlled trial. JAMA. 2011;306(8):831–9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Khan KH. Roles of Emblica officinalis in medicine - a review. Botany Research International. 2009;2(4):218–28.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Mottillo S, Filion KB, Genest J, Joseph L, Pilote L, Poirier P, et al. The metabolic syndrome and cardiovascular risk: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2010;56(14):1113–32.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Yadav SS, Singh MK, Singh PK, Kumar V. Traditional knowledge to clinical trials: a review on therapeutic actions of Emblica officinalis. Biomed Pharmacother. 2017;93:1292–302.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Lim TK. Phyllanthus emblica. In: Edible Medicinal and Non-Medicinal Plants: Volume 4, Fruits. Springer; 2012. p. 258–96.

  11. Pareek S, Shikov AN, Pozharitskaya ON, Makarov VG, González-Aguilar GA, Ramalho SA, et al. Indian Gooseberry (Emblica officinalis Gaertn.). In: Yahia EM, editor., et al., Fruit and Vegetable Phytochemicals: Chemistry and Human Health. 2nd ed. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons Ltd; 2018. p. 1077–105.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Hashem-Dabaghian F, Ziaee M, Ghaffari S, Nabati F, Kianbakht S. A systematic review on the cardiovascular pharmacology of Emblica officinalis Gaertn. J Cardiovasc Thorac Res. 2018;10(3):118–28.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  13. Saini A, Sharma S, Chhibber S. Protective efficacy of Emblica officinalis against Klebsiella pneumoniae induced pneumonia in mice. Indian J Med Res. 2008;128(2):188–93.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Krishnaveni M, Mirunalini S, Karthishwaran K, Dhamodharan G. Antidiabetic and antihyperlipidemic properties of Phyllanthus emblica Linn. (Euphorbiaceae) on streptozotocin induced diabetic rats. Pak J Nutr. 2010;9(1):43–51.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Mehmood MH, Siddiqi HS, Gilani AH. The antidiarrheal and spasmolytic activities of Phyllanthus emblica are mediated through dual blockade of muscarinic receptors and Ca2+ channels. J Ethnopharmacol. 2011;133(2):856–65.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Kim HJ, Yokozawa T, Kim HY, Tohda C, Rao TP, Juneja LR. Influence of amla (Emblica officinalis Gaertn.) on hypercholesterolemia and lipid peroxidation in cholesterol-fed rats. J Nutri Sci Vitaminol. 2005;51(6):413–8.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Santoshkumar J, Manjunath S, Pranavkumar MS. A study of anti-hyperlipidemia, hypolipidemic and anti-atherogenic activity of fruit of Emblica officinalis (amla) in high fat fed albino rats. Int J Med Res Health Sci. 2013;2(1):70–7.

    Google Scholar 

  18. Prakash D, Upadhyay G, Gupta C, Pushpangadan P, Singh KK. Antioxidant and free radical scavenging activities of some promising wild edible fruits. Int Food Res J. 2012;19(3):1109–16.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Perianayagam JB, Sharma SK, Joseph A, Christina AJM. Evaluation of anti-pyretic and analgesic activity of Emblica officinalis Gaertn. J of Ethnopharmacol. 2004;95(1):83–5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Panda S, Kar A. Fruit extract of Emblica officinalis ameliorates hyperthyroidism and hepatic lipid peroxidation in mice. Pharmazie. 2003;58(10):753–5.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Nosál’ová G, Mokrý J, Tareq Hassan KM. Antitussive activity of the fruit extract of Emblica officinalis Gaertn. (Euphorbiaceae). Phytomedicine. 2003;10(6–7):583–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Chatterjee A, Chattopadhyay S, Bandyopadhyay SK. Biphasic effect of Phyllanthus emblica L. extract on NSAID-induced ulcer: An antioxidative trail weaved with immunomodulatory effect. Evid Based Complement Alternat Med. 2011; https://doi.org/10.1155/2011/146808.

  23. Krishnaveni M, Mirunalini S. Chemopreventive efficacy of Phyllanthus emblica L. (amla) fruit extract on 7,12-dimethylbenz(a)anthracene induced oral carcinogenesis - a dose-response study. Environ Toxicol Pharmacol. 2012;34(3):801–10.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Uddin MS, Mamun A al, Hossain MS, Akter F, Iqbal MA, Asaduzzaman M. Exploring the effect of Phyllanthus emblica L. on cognitive performance, brain antioxidant markers and acetylcholinesterase activity in rats: promising natural gift for the mitigation of Alzheimer’s disease. Ann Neurosci. 2016;23(4):218–29.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  25. Al-Rehaily AJ, Al-Howiriny TA, Al-Sohaibani MO, Rafatullah S. Gastroprotective effects of “Amla” Emblica officinalis on in vivo test models in rats. Phytomedicine. 2002;9(6):515–22.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Huang CZ, Tung YT, Hsia SM, Wu CH, Yen GC. The hepatoprotective effect of Phyllanthus emblica L. fruit on high fat diet-induced non-alcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) in SD rats. Food Funct. 2017;8(2):842–50.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Yokozawa T, Kim HY, Kim HJ, Tanaka T, Sugino H, Okubo T, et al. Amla (Emblica officinalis Gaertn.) attenuates age-related renal dysfunction by oxidative stress. J Agric Food Chem. 2007;55(19):7744–52.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Fujii T, Wakaizumi M, Ikami T, Saito M. Amla (Emblica officinalis Gaertn.) extract promotes procollagen production and inhibits matrix metalloproteinase-1 in human skin fibroblasts. J Ethnopharmacol. 2008;119(1):53–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Sumitra M, Manikandan P, Gayathri VS, Mahendran P, Suguna L. Emblica officinalis exerts wound healing action through up-regulation of collagen and extracellular signal-regulated kinases (ERK1/2). Wound Repair Regen. 2009;17(1):99–107.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Teimouri E, Rainey-Smith SR, Bharadwaj P, Verdile G, Martins RN. Amla therapy as a potential modulator of Alzheimer’s disease risk factors and physiological change. J Alzheimers Dis. 2020;74(3):713–33.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Variya BC, Bakrania AK, Patel SS. Emblica officinalis (Amla): a review for its phytochemistry, ethnomedicinal uses and medicinal potentials with respect to molecular mechanisms. Pharmacol Res. 2016;111:180–200.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Akhtar MS, Ramzan A, Ali A, Ahmad M. Effect of amla fruit (Emblica officinalis Gaertn.) on blood glucose and lipid profile of normal subjects and type 2 diabetic patients. Int J Food Sci Nutr. 2011;62(6):609–16.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Antony B, Merina B, Sheeba V. AmlamaxTM in the management of dyslipidemia in humans. Indian J Pharm Sci. 2008;70(4):504–7.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  34. Antony B, Benny M, Kaimal TNB. A pilot clinical study to evaluate the effect of Emblica officinalis extract (AmlamaxTM) on markers of systemic inflammation and dyslipidemia. Indian J Clin Biochem. 2008;23(4):378–81.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  35. Gopa B, Bhatt J, Hemavathi KG. A comparative clinical study of hypolipidemic efficacy of Amla (Emblica officinalis) with 3-hydroxy-3-methylglutaryl-coenzyme-A reductase inhibitor simvastatin. Indian J Pharmacol. 2012;44(2):238–42.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  36. Sinha RR, Sharma N, Advani U, Dadheech G, Kulshreshtha S, Parakh R. Comparative study of hypolipidemic effects of atorvastatin with Emblica officinalis (Amla) in patients of type II hyperlipidemia. World J Pharm Res. 2014;3(2):2799–810.

    Google Scholar 

  37. Fatima N, Usharani P, Muralidhar N. Study of pharmacodynamic interaction of Phyllanthus emblica extract with clopidogrel and ecosprin in patients with type II diabetes mellitus. Phytomedicine. 2014;21(5):579–85.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Khanna S, Das A, Spieldenner J, Rink C, Roy S. Supplementation of a standardized extract from Phyllanthus emblica improves cardiovascular risk factors and platelet aggregation in overweight/class-1 obese adults. J Med Food. 2015;18(4):415–20.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  39. Gupta M, Mathur KC, Yadav K, Sharma P, Tilwani K, Narnolia PK, et al. Effect of Amla (Emblica officinalis) on various physiological and biochemical parameters of metabolic syndrome. Scholars Journal of Applied Medical Sciences. 2016;4(2C):469–75.

    Google Scholar 

  40. Walia K, Boolchandani R, Dhand S, Antony B. Improving glycemic & lipidemic profile with Amla powder (Emblica officinalis) supplementation in adults with type 2 diabetes mellitus. International Journal of Basic and Applied Medical Sciences. 2015;5(2):251–8.

    Google Scholar 

  41. Usharani P, Kishan PV, Fatima N, Uday KC. A comparative study to evaluate the effect of highly standardised aqueous extracts of Phyllanthus emblica, Withania somnifera and their combination on endothelial dysfunction and biomarkers in patients with type II diabetes mellitus. Int J Pharm Sci Res. 2014;5(7):2687–97.

    Google Scholar 

  42. Tayyab F, Lal SS. Comparative study on supplementation effect of Momordica charantia Linn. and Emblica officinalis Gaertn. on lipid profile of type II diabetic patients in Allahabad, Uttar Pradesh India. Ann Phytomed. 2016;5(1):40–2.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  43. Iyer U, Joshi A, Dhruv S. Impact of Amla (Embilica officinalis) supplementation on the glycemic and lipidemic status of type 2 diabetic subjects. Journal of Herbal Medicine and Toxicology. 2009;3(2):15–21.

    Google Scholar 

  44. Chandra RH, Veeresham C, Asres K. Effects of Emblica officinalis commercial formulation in type 2 diabetic patients. Indian J Pharm Sci. 2004;66(6):735–8.

    Google Scholar 

  45. Kavita MB, Mallika KJ, Poornima B. A clinical study on effect of Amalaki (Indian gooseberry) as food supplement in dyslipidemia. Int J Res Ayurveda Pharm. 2016;7(4):59–64.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. Sri KVS, Kumari DJ, Sivannarayana G. Effect of Amla, an approach towards the control of diabetes mellitus. Int J Curr Microbiol Appl Sci. 2013;2(9):103–8.

    Google Scholar 

  47. Chen T-S, Liou S-Y, Chang Y-L. Supplementation of Emblica officinalis (Amla) extract reduces oxidative stress in uremic patients. Am J Chin Med. 2009;37(1):19–25.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  48. Nilkanthrao KD, Shandilya MK. Evaluation of rasayana (rejuvenative) effect of Amalaki (Emblica officinalis) in healthy volunteers. Int J Res Ayurveda Pharm. 2015;6(1):18–21.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  49. Jacob A, Pandey M, Kapoor S, Saroja R. Effect of the Indian gooseberry (amla) on serum cholesterol levels in men aged 35–55 years. Eur J Clin Nutr. 1988;42(11):939–44.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  50. Biswas TK, Chakrabarti S, Pandit S, et al. Pilot study evaluating the use of Emblica officinalis standardized fruit extract in cardio-respiratory improvement and antioxidant status of volunteers with smoking history. J Herb Med. 2014;4(4):188–94.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  51. Fatima N, Usharani P, Pilli R. Evaluation of Phyllanthus emblica extract on cold pressor induced cardiovascular changes in healthy human subjects. Pharmacognosy Res. 2014;6(1):29–35.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  52. Ghaffari S, Navabzadeh M, Ziaee M, Ghobadi A, Ghods R, Hashem-Dabaghian F. A randomized, triple-blind, placebo-controlled, add-on clinical trial to evaluate the efficacy of Emblica officinalis in uncontrolled hypertension. Evid Based Complement Alternat Med. 2020. https://doi.org/10.1155/2020/8592869.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  53. Kapoor MP, Suzuki K, Derek T, Ozeki M, Okubo T. Clinical evaluation of Emblica officinalis Gatertn (Amla) in healthy human subjects: health benefits and safety results from a randomized, double-blind, crossover placebo-controlled study. Contemp Clin Trials Commun. 2020. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conctc.2019.100499.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  54. Shanmugarajan D, Girish C, Harivenkatesh N, Chanaveerappa B, Prasanna Lakshmi NC. Antihypertensive and pleiotropic effects of Phyllanthus emblica extract as an add-on therapy in patients with essential hypertension—a randomized double-blind placebo-controlled trial. Phytother Res. 2021. https://doi.org/10.1002/ptr.7043.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  55. Upadya H, Prabhu S, Prasad A, Subramanian D, Gupta S, Goel A. A randomized, double blind, placebo controlled, multicenter clinical trial to assess the efficacy and safety of Emblica officinalis extract in patients with dyslipidemia. BMC Complement Altern Med. 2019. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12906-019-2430-y.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  56. Usharani P, Fatima N, Muralidhar N. Effects of Phyllanthus emblica extract on endothelial dysfunction and biomarkers of oxidative stress in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus: A randomized, double-blind, controlled study. Diabetes Metab Syndr Obes. 2013;6:275–84.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  57. Usharani P, Merugu PL, Nutalapati C. Evaluation of the effects of a standardized aqueous extract of Phyllanthus emblica fruits on endothelial dysfunction, oxidative stress, systemic inflammation and lipid profile in subjects with metabolic syndrome: A randomised, double blind, placebo controlled clinical study. BMC Complement Altern Med. 2019. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12906-019-2509-5.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  58. Usharani P, Sudha Rani E, Kiran Kishore K, Raveendranath P. Evaluation of the effect of a standardized aqueous extract of the fruits of Emblica officinalis on mental stress induced cardiovascular changes in healthy human subjects. Int J Pharm Sci Res. 2017;8(10):4138–46.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  59. Page MJ, McKenzie JE, Bossuyt PM, Boutron I, Hoffmann TC, Mulrow CD, et al. The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ. 2021;372: n71.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  60. Elbourne DR, Altman DG, Higgins JPT, Curtin F, Worthington HV, Vail A. Meta-analysis involving cross-over trials: methodological issues. Int J Epidemiol. 2002;32(1):140–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  61. Covidence Systematic Review Software [Computer program]. Melbourne, Australia: Veritas Health Innovation; 2021

  62. Sterne JAC, Savović J, Page MJ, Elbers RG, Blencowe NS, Boutron I, et al. RoB 2: a revised tool for assessing risk of bias in randomized trials. BMJ. 2019;366:14898.

    Google Scholar 

  63. Higgins JPT, Thomas J, Chandler J, Cumpston M, Li T, Page MJ, Welch VA, editors. Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions. Version 6.2. Cochrane; 2021. www.training.cochrane.org/handbook. Accessed June 2, 2021.

  64. Higgins JPT, Green S. Chapter 7: selecting studies and collecting data. In: Higgins JPR, Green S, editors. Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions. Version 5.1.0. Cochrane; 2011. https://handbook-5-1.cochrane.org/chapter_7/7_selecting_studies_and_collecting_data.htm. Accessed June 2, 2021.

  65. Higgins JPT, Eldrige S, Tianjing L. Chapter 23: Including variants on randomized trials. In: Higgins JPR, Thomas J, Chandler J, Cumpston M, Li T, Page MJ, Welch VA, editors. Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions. Version 6.3. Cochrane; 2022. Available from: https://training.cochrane.org/handbook/current/chapter-23.

  66. Higgins JPT, Green S. Chapter 16: special topics in statistics. In: Higgins JPR, Green S, editors. Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions. Version 5.1.0. Cochrane; 2011. https://handbook-5-1.cochrane.org/chapter_16/16_special_topics_in_statistics.htm. Accessed June 2, 2021.

  67. Higgins JPT, Thompson SG. Quantifying heterogeneity in a meta-analysis. Stat Med. 2002;21(11):1539–58.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  68. Borenstein M, Higgins JP, Hedges LV, Rothstein HR. Basics of meta-analysis: I2 is not an absolute measure of heterogeneity. Res Synth Methods. 2017;8(1):5–18.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  69. Review Manager (RevMan) [Computer program]. Version 5.4. The Cochrane Collaboration. 2020.

    Google Scholar 

  70. Bramer WM, Rethlefsen ML, Kleijnen J, Franco OH. Optimal database combinations for literature searches in systematic reviews: a prospective exploratory study. Syst Rev. 2017;6:245.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  71. Srivastava R. Efficacy of amla powder (emblica officinalis) and nutrition counselling on hyperlipidemic and hypertensive subject”. Punjab Agricultural University: Independently Published; 2018. p. 1–119.

    Google Scholar 

  72. Chepulis L, Al-Aubaidy H, Page R. Effects of selected antioxidant food extracts on postprandial glucose responses in healthy individuals. Functional Foods in Health and Disase. 2016;6(8):493–505.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  73. McGuinness LA, Higgins JPT. Risk-of-bias VISualization (robvis): An R package and Shiny web app for visualizing risk-of-bias assessments. Research Synthesis Methods. 2020.

  74. Higgins JPT, Green S. Chapter 9: Analysis data and undertaking meta-analyses. In: Higgins JPR, Green S, editors. Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions. Version 5.1.0. Cochrane; 2011. https://handbook-5-1.cochrane.org/chapter_9/9_analysing_data_and_undertaking_meta_analyses.htm. Accessed Jan 23, 2022.

  75. Friedewald WT, Levy RI, Fredrickson DS. Estimation of the concentration of low-density lipoprotein cholesterol in plasma, without use of the preparative ultracentrifuge. Clin Chem. 1972;18(6):499–502.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  76. Anderson TJ, Grégoire J, Pearson GJ, Barry AR, Couture P, Dawes M, et al. 2016 Canadian Cardiovascular Society guidelines for the management of dyslipidemia for the prevention of cardiovascular disease in the adult. Can J Cardiol. 2016;32(11):1263–82.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  77. Mathur R, Sharma A, Dixit VP, Varma M. Hypolipidaemic effect of fruit juice of Emblica officinalis in cholesterol-fed rabbits. J Ethnopharmacol. 1996;50(2):61–8.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  78. Anila L, Vijayalakshmi NR. Flavonoids from Emblica officinalis and Mangifera indica—effectiveness for dyslipidemia. J Ethnopharmacol. 2002;79(1):81–7.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

Not applicable.

Funding

This research was supported by a Michael Smith Foundation for Health Research Scholar Award to BMS. The funding body was not involved in the design of the study; collection, analysis, and interpretation of data; or writing of the manuscript.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Southern Medical Program, Faculty of Medicine, University of British Columbia Okanagan Campus, 1088 Discovery Avenue, Kelowna, BC, V1V 1V7, Canada

    Paul D. S. Brown, Mathew Vis-Dunbar & Brodie M. Sakakibara

  2. Department of Biology, Irving K. Barber Faculty of Science, University of British Columbia Okanagan Campus, 3187 University Way, ASC 413, Kelowna, BC, V1V 1V7, Canada

    Nicole Ketter

  3. Centre for Chronic Disease Prevention and Management, University of British Columbia Okanagan Campus, 1088 Discovery Avenue, Kelowna, BC, V1V 1V7, Canada

    Nicole Ketter & Brodie M. Sakakibara

  4. Department of Occupational Science and Occupational Therapy, University of British Columbia, T325 - 2211 , Wesbrook Mall, Vancouver, BC, V6T 2B5, Canada

    Brodie M. Sakakibara

Authors
  1. Paul D. S. Brown
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Nicole Ketter
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Mathew Vis-Dunbar
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Brodie M. Sakakibara
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

PDB conceptualized the study, analyzed and interpreted the data, and wrote the first draft of the manuscript. NK helped analyze and interpret the data and prepare the manuscript. MV-D helped prepare the search strategy, interpret the data, and prepare the manuscript. BMS conceptualized the study, analyzed and interpreted the data, and helped prepare the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Brodie M. Sakakibara.

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate

Not applicable.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. 

Supplementary Information

Additional file 1.

Appendix A and B.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Brown, P.D.S., Ketter, N., Vis-Dunbar, M. et al. Clinical effects of Emblica officinalis fruit consumption on cardiovascular disease risk factors: a systematic review and meta-analysis. BMC Complement Med Ther 23, 190 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12906-023-03997-8

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12906-023-03997-8

Keywords

BMC Complementary Medicine and Therapies

ISSN: 2662-7671

Contact us