Skip to the main content
Open WellbeingWhat the studies actually measured

Body weight and composition

Psylliumand Body weight

Both sources here found no clear difference in body weight.

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.

-0.78-0.28 kg0.21

This range crosses the no-difference line, so these numbers fit a real difference and no difference at all equally well.

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

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, 2020 · 22 studies pooled

    Low certainty, level 2 of 4

    The effects of psyllium supplementation on body weight, body mass index and waist circumference in adults: A systematic review and dose-response meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

    Crit Rev Food Sci Nutr. 2020;60(5):859-872. doi:10.1080/10408398.2018.1553140. PMID:30880409.

    Number reported
    -0.28 kg
    Which way it went
    No clear difference
    Likely range
    -0.78 to 0.21
    Source’s own words
    kg body weight mean difference vs control
    Who was studied
    Adult
    Compared with
    control
    Amount taken
    Not in the abstract
    For how long
    Not in the abstract
    Disagreement between studies
    dosage, mode of administration, trial duration, design, sample size and gender identified as sources of heterogeneity
    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 confidence interval includes no effectReported in the abstract
    4. Ends at Low2 steps down.
    Checked, nothing to step it down for
    indirectness
    Inconsistency
    No high disagreement reported between the 22 studies it pooled

    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, 2020

    Low certainty, level 2 of 4

    The effect of psyllium consumption on weight, body mass index, lipid profile, and glucose metabolism in diabetic patients: A systematic review and dose-response meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

    Phytother Res. 2020;34(6):1237-1247. doi:10.1002/ptr.6609. PMID:31919936.

    Number reported
    Not in the abstract
    Which way it went
    No clear difference
    Likely range
    Not in the abstract
    Source’s own words
    body weight vs control; no significant change; magnitude not given
    Who was studied
    Diabetic patients
    Compared with
    not stated in the abstract
    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 Psyllium

Eight of the 19 things on our list for Psyllium have no reading here yet:

  • ApoB / ApoA1 Ratio
  • Apolipoprotein A1 (ApoA1)
  • Fasting insulin
  • Fructosamine
  • High-sensitivity CRP
  • HOMA-IR
  • Stool frequency
  • Waist circumference

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.