Skip to the main content
Open WellbeingWhat the studies actually measured

Blood sugar and insulin

Ginkgo bilobaand Hemoglobin A1c

Both sources here found no clear difference in hemoglobin A1c.

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

No number has been put on this yet. Two sources recorded only which way the numbers went — for now, that is all we have here.

Two sources, newest first

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
    Not in the abstract
    Which way it went
    No clear difference
    Likely range
    Not in the abstract
    Source’s own words
    percentage-point weighted mean difference in HbA1c vs control (no pooled estimate reported for the null result)
    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
    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.

    AI review could not confirm it — an AI agent re-read this finding against the saved source and at least one check failed. The batch record names the check and quotes the sentence that caused the doubt. No person read it.

    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
    percentage-point weighted mean difference in HbA1c 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

  • None gives a number at all, only which way it went.
  • Two give no likely range, so how precise those numbers are 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.