Skip to the main content
Open WellbeingWhat the studies actually measured

Blood sugar and insulin

Ginkgo bilobaand Fasting plasma glucose

Two sources here, and they say different things: one measured lower fasting plasma glucose and one found no clear difference.

How sure anyone can be

Low certainty, level 2 of 4

Further research is likely to change this.

The most certain of the two findings here; each record carries its own.

The numbers reported

One source’s range, drawn against its own line of no difference and scaled to its own numbers.

-24.61-13.88 mg/dL-3.15

This range stays on one side of the no-difference line.

Bar the confidence interval — the range the true effect is likely to sit inNotch the number the source reportedLine where there would be no difference at all

Two sources, newest first

We do not pick between these or average them into one number.

What we read is the published abstract, not the full paper, so a blank below may still be printed in the paper itself. A fixed rule worked this out from the source’s own fields. Nobody checked this rating by hand.

  • Systematic review, 2026

    Low certainty, level 2 of 4

    Effects of Ginkgo biloba extract on glycemic control, inflammatory markers, lipid profile, anthropometric indices, and safety parameters in patients with metabolic syndrome and type 2 diabetes: a meta-analysis.

    Diabetol Metab Syndr. 2026;18(1). doi:10.1186/s13098-026-02183-3. PMID:42157337.

    Number reported
    -13.88 mg/dL
    Which way it went
    Lower
    Likely range
    -24.61 to -3.15
    Source’s own words
    mg/dL weighted mean difference in fasting blood glucose vs control
    Who was studied
    Adult with metabolic syndrome or type 2 diabetes
    Compared with
    control
    Amount taken
    Not in the abstract
    For how long
    Not in the abstract
    Disagreement between studies
    substantial heterogeneity reported without a per-outcome I2
    Kind of record
    Journal article
    How this rating was reachedstarts at High, 2 steps down: risk of bias and imprecision
    1. Starts at High
    2. Risk of bias brought it down to Moderatethe abstract reports no risk-of-bias or quality appraisal, so study limitations cannot be ruled outNot in the abstract
    3. Imprecision brought it down to Lowthe abstract does not state how many participants were pooledNot in the abstract
    4. Ends at Low2 steps down.
    Checked, nothing to step it down for
    indirectness
    Inconsistency
    No disagreement reported, and no count of studies behind it

    Imprecision stops at the first check that applies; others may apply too.

    AI-reviewed & signed — an AI agent re-read this finding against the saved source and checked that the quote, the numbers, the units and the direction match it. No person read it. The owner authorised the agent to sign the batch with the owner's key, and every build rechecks that signature against these exact bytes.

    Read the abstract on PubMed

  • Systematic review, 2023

    Low certainty, level 2 of 4

    Effects and safety of Ginkgo biloba on blood metabolism in type 2 diabetes mellitus: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

    Front Endocrinol (Lausanne). 2023;14:1231053. doi:10.3389/fendo.2023.1231053. PMID:38264278.

    Number reported
    Not in the abstract
    Which way it went
    No clear difference
    Likely range
    Not in the abstract
    Source’s own words
    weighted mean difference in fasting serum glucose vs control (no pooled estimate reported for the null result)
    Who was studied
    Adult with type 2 diabetes
    Compared with
    control
    Amount taken
    Not in the abstract
    For how long
    Not in the abstract
    Disagreement between studies
    Not in the abstract
    Kind of record
    Journal article
    How this rating was reachedstarts at High, 2 steps down: risk of bias and imprecision
    1. Starts at High
    2. Risk of bias brought it down to Moderatethe abstract reports no risk-of-bias or quality appraisal, so study limitations cannot be ruled outNot in the abstract
    3. Imprecision brought it down to Lowthe abstract reports no confidence interval for the estimateNot in the abstract
    4. Ends at Low2 steps down.
    Checked, nothing to step it down for
    indirectness
    Inconsistency
    No disagreement reported, and no count of studies behind it

    Imprecision stops at the first check that applies; others may apply too.

    Source saved; quote checked byte-for-byte against it by software; no signature.

    Read the abstract on PubMed

What is still missing from these readings

  • One give no number at all, only which way it went.
  • One gives no likely range, so how precise that number is is unknown.
  • Two do not say how many people took part.
  • Amount taken — Not in the abstract.
  • For how long — Not in the abstract.

Something nobody wrote down is never a zero and never a guess.

Still to read for Ginkgo biloba

Two of the ten things on our list for Ginkgo biloba have no reading here yet:

  • Fasting insulin
  • Mood

Still to read means nobody here has got to it, not that it was tried and did nothing or that no research exists. A pairing on no list is not a gap: we never set out to read it.

Read next

This is a library, not advice. No recommendation, no dose, no diagnosis, no ranking. We never ask about your symptoms, and nothing here is tailored to you.