Skip to the main content
Open WellbeingWhat the studies actually measured

Blood sugar and insulin

Psylliumand Fasting plasma glucose

Both sources here measured lower fasting plasma glucose.

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.

-50.04-31.71-13.38

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

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

    Very low certainty, level 1 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
    -31.71
    Which way it went
    Lower
    Likely range
    -50.04 to -13.38
    Source’s own words
    ml/dl fasting blood sugar weighted mean difference vs control (unit as printed)
    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
    I2 = 97%
    Kind of record
    Journal article
    How this rating was reachedstarts at High, 3 steps down: risk of bias, imprecision and inconsistency
    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. Inconsistency brought it down to Very lowheterogeneity across pooled studies is high (I² = 97%)Reported in the abstract
    5. Ends at Very low3 steps down.
    Checked, nothing to step it down for
    indirectness

    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

  • Systematic review, 2015

    Low certainty, level 2 of 4

    Psyllium fiber improves glycemic control proportional to loss of glycemic control: a meta-analysis of data in euglycemic subjects, patients at risk of type 2 diabetes mellitus, and patients being treated for type 2 diabetes mellitus.

    Am J Clin Nutr. 2015;102(6):1604-14. doi:10.3945/ajcn.115.106989. PMID:26561625.

    Number reported
    -37 mg/dL
    Which way it went
    Lower
    Likely range
    Not in the abstract
    Source’s own words
    mg/dL fasting blood glucose change vs control in treated type 2 diabetes
    Who was studied
    Adult with type 2 diabetes
    Compared with
    control
    Amount taken
    Recorded detail — psyllium dosed before meals (dose not stated in the abstract)
    For how long
    Not in the abstract
    Disagreement between studies
    effect explicitly proportional to baseline fasting glucose; no glucose lowering in euglycemic subjects
    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

What is still missing from these readings

  • One gives no likely range, so how precise that number is is unknown.
  • Two do not say how many people took part.
  • Amount taken — One of Two readings: 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.