This page shows what was measured, who it was measured in, and what that does not settle.
What Rhodiola rosea does in the body
Sold for fatigue and mental performance under stress.
Rhodiola root contains two families of marker compounds: rosavins, which are close to unique to this species, and salidroside, which is not. Trials give a standardised extract to people who are tired and measure whether they perform better on tests. What the extract is doing at the molecular level in a human being has not been established; the animal and cell work points at monoamine signalling and at stress-hormone regulation, but at concentrations nobody has shown a person reaches.
What happened in people
Eleven controlled studies reported benefits for physical or mental performance.
✓ Reviewed first-read answer
Where this came from
A person wrote this and a reviewer approved it against this exact record. It carries no effect size.
A reviewer approved this against this record. The reviewed-claim record carrying the exact population and effect size does not exist yet.
No source is stored against this line.
The limit that matters most
Not one positive finding had been independently repeated in the research review.
Where it acts
Central nervous system, inferred rather than localised
Kind of result
Measured performance
Supervision
Not usually supervised: sold as a supplement or food ingredient where recorded. That is a legal category, not a safety judgement.
What the registries record it as
The organism is Rhodiola rosea, a species. It is also called rose-root.
NCBI Taxonomy · 203015 · read 2026-08-29
The supplement label database classes it as botanical, under the name Rhodiola.
No recorded sentence describes the change this makes in a way that stands on its own. The page opens with what it is taken for instead, and the recorded explanation follows below.
Shown as the opening line on this page.
The limit a reviewer approved as the one that matters most here.
The four opening statements run to 99 words.
Words this page uses
Four words worth knowing first
Chosen from what this page shows, with each one explained before the word it depends on.
Placebo
A placebo is a dummy treatment given so the real one can be compared with it.
A picture of it, and where the picture fails
A placebo is like a blank control in an experiment.
Where that stops being true. A blank does nothing. People given a placebo often do get better.
What people get wrong. A placebo effect is read as imaginary. The improvement is measured and real.
An inactive intervention matched in appearance to the test intervention, used to control for non-specific effects.
Comparator
A comparator is whatever the treatment was measured against.
A picture of it, and where the picture fails
It is like the other runner in a race.
Where that stops being true. A race has one winner. A study can show both arms improved.
What people get wrong. Results are read without asking what the other group got. Beating nothing is not beating a treatment.
The control condition against which the experimental intervention is assessed.
Randomisation
Randomisation means chance decides who gets which treatment.
A picture of it, and where the picture fails
It is like a coin toss deciding the groups.
Where that stops being true. A coin toss is fair once. Fairness here comes from doing it for everyone.
What people get wrong. It is thought to make groups identical. It makes them similar on average, including on things nobody measured.
Allocation of participants to arms by a chance process, so that unmeasured factors are balanced in expectation.
What happened in people◇Read from sources, not yet reviewed
What happened in people
Each card is one study: the exact question it asked, who was in it, and whether it showed what it set out to show.
Change in Hamilton Depression Rating Scale over 12 weeks
✗ The study did not show it
Who was studied
Mao 2015 (R. rosea versus sertraline versus placebo, major depressive disorder)
How many people
57
Study design
Phase 2 randomised, placebo-controlled
Compared against
A dummy treatment
Kind of result
A number that stands in for health
What was found
P = 0.79 for HAM-D between groups; adverse event difference P = 0.012
Repeated elsewhere
Unreplicated
What this does not prove. A study that did not show an effect does not show that no effect exists anywhere.
The limits of this study, and where it came from
Main limit. Neither active arm separated from placebo, so this is an underpowered trial rather than a demonstration that rhodiola equals sertraline. The tolerability difference was the only significant finding.
How far it carries. This study is recorded from the curated record, not from the registry match.
Form and route. Oral capsule or tablet of standardised root and rhizome extract
Interval reported. Not recorded in this summary
Written into the record, not signed off as a reviewed claim.
Not applicable — narrative synthesis, no pooled estimate
Repeated elsewhere
Unreplicated
What this does not prove. Meeting one endpoint in one population does not carry to other goals or other people.
The limits of this study, and where it came from
Main limit. Sample size recorded as 0 because the review reports trial counts rather than a pooled participant total. Only mild adverse events were reported across the included trials.
How far it carries. This study is recorded from the curated record, not from the registry match.
Form and route. Oral capsule or tablet of standardised root and rhizome extract
Interval reported. Not recorded in this summary
Written into the record, not signed off as a reviewed claim.
RNAWiki holds 3 written-up human studies for this substance, each with the question it asked.
How we know it
Each card names the study, the number of people and what the study set out to measure.
What this does not prove
These summaries were written by a person and have not been signed off as reviewed claims.
Why it matters
A study that failed is as informative as one that worked, and both are here.
What we still do not know
No reviewed claim exists, so no exact population, effect size or interval is published yet.
What it changes in the body◇Read from sources, not yet reviewed
The path through the body
From what a person takes to what changes. A solid line is a step measured in people. A dashed line is a step nobody has measured that way.
Start
Rhodiola rosea
What a person takes: Oral capsule or tablet of standardised root and rhizome extract.
The measurement behind this step
Sold as a dietary supplement in the United States with no premarket efficacy review, and registered in parts of Europe as a traditional herbal medicinal product, a registration granted on documented traditional use rather than on trial evidence. Substitution with the cheaper Rhodiola crenulata is a documented supply-chain issue, which is why the rosavin specification matters.
Getting in
A two-marker extract, and the species matters
The capsule is a root extract standardised on two different families of compounds, one of which is close to unique to this species.
╌╌Described, with no measurement named. No measurement is named for this step, so it is drawn as an unconfirmed link.
The measurement behind this step
Rosavin, rosin and rosarin are cinnamyl glycosides largely specific to Rhodiola rosea. Salidroside, a tyrosol glucoside, occurs across the genus including in the cheaper R. crenulata. Trial extracts are specified on both, most often at a 3:1 rosavin to salidroside ratio.
The glycosides are absorbed after the sugar is cleaved off, so what circulates is not exactly what was swallowed.
──Measured in people. Written by a person from the study named beside the step. Not signed off as a reviewed claim.
The measurement behind this step
Salidroside is hydrolysed to its aglycone tyrosol by intestinal and microbial beta-glucosidases; rosavins are similarly deglycosylated. Human pharmacokinetic characterisation of either family is sparse, and no trial in the systematic review measured a plasma concentration.
A proposed central action that has not been located
The favoured explanation is an effect on brain messenger chemicals, but nobody has shown it happening in a person.
╌╌Described, with no measurement named. No measurement is named for this step, so it is drawn as an unconfirmed link.
The measurement behind this step
Cell and animal work reports monoamine oxidase inhibition and effects on serotonin and dopamine turnover, and effects on the hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal axis. The unresolved step is whether the marker compounds cross the blood-brain barrier at the concentrations an oral dose produces.
Fatigue indices improve in acutely stressed people
People who are tired for a specific reason score better on the tests.
╌╌Described, with no measurement named. No measurement is named for this step, so it is drawn as an unconfirmed link.
The measurement behind this step
The most consistent trial signal is in populations under acute stress with sleep restriction — night-duty physicians, students, cadets — rather than in healthy rested volunteers, which is a pattern worth noticing about what the extract may be compensating for.
The individual trials are reasonable. Nobody has repeated any of them independently.
╌╌Described, with no measurement named. No measurement is named for this step, so it is drawn as an unconfirmed link.
The measurement behind this step
This is the finding the 2011 systematic review put in its conclusion, and it has not changed. Eleven placebo-controlled trials, moderate to good quality, no independent replication of any single one.
No suggested links are held for this record, so nothing is hidden from this path.
What we know
The record describes 5 steps from taking it to an effect in a person.
How we know it
Each step names the study behind it in the technical detail beside it.
What this does not prove
A change inside the body is a reason to look. It is not a result in a person.
Why it matters
A reader can see exactly where the chain stops being measured in people.
What we still do not know
No reviewed claim binds any of these steps to a named population.
What is missing or unclear◇Read from sources, not yet reviewed
Were people like you studied?
RNAWiki cannot tell whether a study fits you. It can show who was in it, and where the result stops carrying.
Who was studied
People similar to this profile were included.
Shift workers, students, endurance athletes and adults with self-described burnout. It is also taken for low mood, on the strength of one 57-person phase 2 trial.
Who is missing from the studies
Which groups were under-represented in the studies has not been recorded for this substance. Pregnancy, breastfeeding, children, older adults, and people with liver or kidney conditions are commonly excluded from trials; nothing here says whether they were.
Where the result stopped carrying
No efficacy separation from placebo on any depression scale in the one active-controlled trial
A 2023 systematic review of sports performance found the trial base too inconsistent to support the claim
This is a scope explorer, not a diagnosis engine.
It shows who was studied so you can see whether people similar to you were included.
RNAWiki cannot tell whether a study fits you. It can show who was in it.
What it would be like to take◇Read from sources, not yet reviewed
Why it might seem to do nothing
A real effect and a noticed effect are different things. These are the recorded reasons the two come apart.
It was studied in different people
The people in the studies were not much like the reader.
On this record: Which groups were under-represented in the studies has not been recorded for this substance. Pregnancy, breastfeeding, children, older adults, and people with liver or kidney conditions are commonly excluded from trials; nothing here says whether they were.
The evidence may simply be wrong
Small early studies often do not hold up.
On this record: RNAWiki has not yet published a reviewed conclusion for this use.
The product may not be what it says
Contents of a sold product are not always what the label states.
On this record: This is sold as a supplement, so no agency checked what is in a given tub before it was sold.
Other reasons RNAWiki checked and found nothing for (10)
It was studied for a different goal
The studies measured something else entirely. Nothing in this record points to this reason.
A different form was studied
The studied form is not the form on the shelf. Nothing in this record points to this reason.
There was nothing to correct
Where a level is already normal, topping it up may change nothing. Nothing in this record points to this reason.
Something else had to happen too
In the studies it was paired with training, a diet or another treatment. Nothing in this record points to this reason.
The change is too small to feel
A real change can still sit below what a person notices. Nothing in this record points to this reason.
Day-to-day swing hides it
Sleep, food, stress and time of day move most numbers more than this would. Nothing in this record points to this reason.
Not enough time yet
The studies ran longer than the person has waited. Nothing in this record points to this reason.
It was not taken as studied
Missed days change the result, and studies count them. Nothing in this record points to this reason.
Something else changed at the same time
Two changes at once cannot be told apart afterwards. Nothing in this record points to this reason.
No recorded reason
RNAWiki has nothing stored that would explain it. Nothing in this record points to this reason.
None of these is a reason to take more. Taking more is not a step this page ever suggests.
What it would be like to take◇Read from sources, not yet reviewed
What taking it involves
The recorded facts about getting hold of it and using it. Nothing here is a suggestion about what you should do.
How it is supplied
Varies by country
❝ Quoted from a source
Where this came from
Copied from a source RNAWiki stored, with the source named.
Read from the recorded approval status.
No source is stored against this line.
Form and route
Oral capsule or tablet of standardised root and rhizome extract
✎ Source-linked record
Where this came from
A person wrote this into the record with the study named beside it. No reviewer has signed it off.
The form and route recorded on this substance.
No source is stored against this line.
Who oversees it
Not usually supervised: sold as a supplement or food ingredient where recorded. That is a legal category, not a safety judgement.
❝ Quoted from a source
Where this came from
Copied from a source RNAWiki stored, with the source named.
The identity record classes it as a botanical or organism preparation; no register records an approval.
No source is stored against this line.
What is in the pack
Sold as a dietary supplement in the United States with no premarket efficacy review, and registered in parts of Europe as a traditional herbal medicinal product, a registration granted on documented traditional use rather than on trial evidence.
✎ Source-linked record
Where this came from
A person wrote this into the record with the study named beside it. No reviewer has signed it off.
Recorded notes on how this is sold. The rest of the recorded wording: Substitution with the cheaper Rhodiola crenulata is a documented supply-chain issue, which is why the rosavin specification matters.
No source is stored against this line.
Where it is registered
Not recorded.
∅ Nothing recorded
Where this came from
RNAWiki holds nothing here and says so rather than guessing.
No register entry is recorded.
No source is stored against this line.
Why people stop
Not recorded.
∅ Nothing recorded
Where this came from
RNAWiki holds nothing here and says so rather than guessing.
No record of why people stopped taking it is stored for this substance.
No source is stored against this line.
What it would be like to take◇Read from sources, not yet reviewed
What can go wrong
Sorted by where each line came from. A regulator's label and a report somebody sent in are not the same kind of fact.
·Worth asking a clinician aboutWritten into the record from the studies named on this page
Only mild adverse events were reported across the eleven trials in the systematic review, and the rate in the sertraline comparison was half that of the drug and roughly double that of placebo. Reported effects include dizziness, dry mouth and, given the proposed monoamine activity, a theoretical interaction with serotonergic drugs that has not been formally studied. One patient in the ashwagandha liver injury case series was taking rhodiola concurrently and it was named as a possible co-causative agent.
Nobody counted how many people took this and were fine, so this cannot be turned into a rate.
Over a long time. No completed tested study window is recorded, so long-term effects are not established by the registry record.
Groups the studies covered thinly. Which groups were under-represented in the studies has not been recorded for this substance. Pregnancy, breastfeeding, children, older adults, and people with liver or kidney conditions are commonly excluded from trials; nothing here says whether they were.
What is missing or unclear∅Nothing found in the sources checked
Does the exact form matter?
Evidence belongs to the exact thing that was tested. A different salt, a different mixture or a different preparation is a different question.
The form that was studied
Oral capsule or tablet of standardised root and rhizome extract
✎ Source-linked record
Where this came from
A person wrote this into the record with the study named beside it. No reviewer has signed it off.
The form used in the studies cited on this page.
No source is stored against this line.
What is sold
Substitution with the cheaper Rhodiola crenulata is a documented supply-chain issue, which is why the rosavin specification matters.
✎ Source-linked record
Where this came from
A person wrote this into the record with the study named beside it. No reviewer has signed it off.
Recorded notes on which forms are sold and how they compare.
No source is stored against this line.
Evidence carries across two names for one substance. It does not carry across a salt, a mirror form or a mixture.
What it would be like to take◇Read from sources, not yet reviewed
What you could measure
Watching one thing carefully can tell you whether it moved. It cannot tell you what moved it.
This is sold without a prescription, so a person can sensibly watch one thing and see whether it moves.
Pick one goal. One goal only. Two at once cannot be told apart afterwards.
Pick one thing to watch. No registered study lists a measure RNAWiki could read for this.
Measure before you start. Take the same measurement several times first. One reading is not a starting point.
Know the swing. Write down how much it moves on its own across a normal week.
Change one thing. Change nothing else at the same time, including training and sleep.
Give it the study length. No finished study window is recorded, so no length is suggested here.
Track whether you took it. Missed days are the most common reason a home test shows nothing.
Read the trend. Look at the line across weeks. A single reading tells you almost nothing.
What not to measure
Anything that swings more day to day than the change you are looking for.
A wearable estimate of sleep stages, which is an estimate and not a measurement.
Weight on one morning, which mostly records water.
A feeling you did not write down before starting.
When to stop
Stop if something new and unpleasant starts, and ask a pharmacist or doctor.
Stop if you cannot keep everything else steady, because the result will not mean anything.
Stop at the end of the window you set, and read the trend then.
Tracking can show whether something changed for you. It cannot show what caused it.
RNAWiki does not work out an amount for anyone.
What is missing or unclear◇Read from sources, not yet reviewed
Claims that go past the evidence
Things said about this substance that sound reasonable, and the exact step that is missing between the evidence and the claim.
✗Goes past the evidence
That rhodiola is comparable to sertraline for depression — in the one trial that tested it, neither arm separated from placebo
Why it sounds right. It follows from something real on this page: a body step, an animal result or a related finding.
The missing step. Nobody measured this in people for this use, or the study that did measure it did not show it.
What would change this
A study in people, for this exact use, measuring this exact thing, that a reviewer signs off.
RNAWiki has not yet published a reviewed conclusion for this use.
✗Goes past the evidence
That an anti-fatigue effect in sleep-restricted shift workers transfers to athletic performance
Why it sounds right. It follows from something real on this page: a body step, an animal result or a related finding.
The missing step. Nobody measured this in people for this use, or the study that did measure it did not show it.
What would change this
A study in people, for this exact use, measuring this exact thing, that a reviewer signs off.
RNAWiki has not yet published a reviewed conclusion for this use.
✗Goes past the evidence
That a specific effect size exists for fatigue, when the trials are too heterogeneous to pool into one
Why it sounds right. It follows from something real on this page: a body step, an animal result or a related finding.
The missing step. Nobody measured this in people for this use, or the study that did measure it did not show it.
What would change this
A study in people, for this exact use, measuring this exact thing, that a reviewer signs off.
RNAWiki has not yet published a reviewed conclusion for this use.
✗Goes past the evidence
That a product standardised only on salidroside contains the species with the trial evidence
Why it sounds right. It follows from something real on this page: a body step, an animal result or a related finding.
The missing step. Nobody measured this in people for this use, or the study that did measure it did not show it.
What would change this
A study in people, for this exact use, measuring this exact thing, that a reviewer signs off.
RNAWiki has not yet published a reviewed conclusion for this use.
What is missing or unclear◇Read from sources, not yet reviewed
What nobody knows yet
Open questions, each with why it is open and what would close it.
Missing populations
Which groups were under-represented in the studies has not been recorded.
Why it matters. Recorded by the evidence model as a gap on this record.
What would answer it
A study that measures it, and a reviewer to sign it off.
Last checked 2026-09-04. Searched: The sources listed in the receipts at the foot of this page.
Missing long-term data
No completed tested study window is recorded.
Why it matters. Recorded by the evidence model as a gap on this record.
What would answer it
A study that measures it, and a reviewer to sign it off.
Last checked 2026-09-04. Searched: The sources listed in the receipts at the foot of this page.
No reviewed conclusion
RNAWiki has not yet published a reviewed conclusion for this use.
Why it matters. Recorded by the evidence model as a gap on this record.
What would answer it
A study that measures it, and a reviewer to sign it off.
Last checked 2026-09-04. Searched: The sources listed in the receipts at the foot of this page.
Missing interaction studies
No interaction was found in the registers checked. Not finding one is not the same as showing there is none.
Why it matters. Recorded by the evidence model as a gap on this record.
What would answer it
A study that measures it, and a reviewer to sign it off.
Last checked 2026-09-04. Searched: The sources listed in the receipts at the foot of this page.
Formulation uncertainty
Several salts, forms or products of Rhodiola rosea are recorded. Results from one form may not transfer to another.
Why it matters. Recorded by the evidence model as a gap on this record.
What would answer it
A study that measures it, and a reviewer to sign it off.
Last checked 2026-09-04. Searched: The sources listed in the receipts at the foot of this page.
Mechanism not reviewed
No reviewed mechanism story exists for this substance.
Why it matters. Recorded by the evidence model as a gap on this record.
What would answer it
A study that measures it, and a reviewer to sign it off.
Last checked 2026-09-04. Searched: The sources listed in the receipts at the foot of this page.
What happened in people◇Read from sources, not yet reviewed
Check any of this yourself
Every line above traced back to the study it came from. This is the technical layer, and the vocabulary changes here.
Every line above can be traced to the study named beside it. Follow the link and read it.
Eleven placebo-controlled trials of moderate to good quality, and no replication
In plain words
A systematic review found eleven decent placebo-controlled trials with positive results, and pointed out that not one of them had been independently repeated.
What was measured
Pooled qualitative assessment of eleven placebo-controlled trials
Effect estimate
No reviewed effect estimate exists for this record.
Limits
See the technical detail.
From the source
Hung, Perry and Ernst searched six databases without language restriction and identified eleven randomised controlled trials, all placebo-controlled: six on physical performance, four on mental performance and two in diagnosed mental health conditions. Methodological quality was moderate or good, with five of ten scoring more than three points on the Jadad scale. The conclusion was that R. rosea may have beneficial effects on physical performance, mental performance and certain mental health conditions, and that there is a lack of independent replication of the single different studies. Only mild adverse events were reported.
Written into the record, not signed off as a reviewed claim
Darbinyan 2000: a crossover trial in physicians on night duty
In plain words
Doctors working night shifts scored better on mental performance tests while taking a standardised rhodiola extract than while taking placebo.
What was measured
Composite fatigue index from cognitive performance tasks during night duty
Effect estimate
No reviewed effect estimate exists for this record.
Limits
See the technical detail.
From the source
A double-blind crossover study of the standardised SHR-5 extract on a repeated low-dose regimen in healthy physicians during night duty, reporting improvement on a fatigue index built from cognitive performance tasks. The design is the strongest feature: crossover with each participant as their own control removes between-person variation, which matters at this sample size. The weakness is that it has not been independently repeated in the twenty-five years since.
Written into the record, not signed off as a reviewed claim
Mao 2015: no significant difference from placebo on any depression scale
In plain words
In the only trial to compare rhodiola against a real antidepressant, nothing reached statistical significance — including the antidepressant.
What was measured
Change in Hamilton Depression Rating Scale over 12 weeks
Effect estimate
No reviewed effect estimate exists for this record.
Limits
This entry records a failure.
From the source
Phase 2 randomised placebo-controlled trial, 57 subjects randomised to 12 weeks of standardised R. rosea extract, sertraline or placebo for mild to moderate major depressive disorder. Reductions in HAM-D, BDI and CGI/C were modest and statistically non-significant, with no significant difference between groups (P = 0.79, 0.28 and 0.17). The HAM-D decline was -8.2 for sertraline, -5.1 for rhodiola and -4.6 for placebo. Adverse events were reported by 63.2% on sertraline, 30.0% on rhodiola and 16.7% on placebo (P = 0.012). The authors framed the result as a more favourable risk-to-benefit ratio for rhodiola, which is a defensible reading of a trial that was underpowered for efficacy and did detect the tolerability difference.
Written into the record, not signed off as a reviewed claim
The sports-performance claim does not survive a systematic review
In plain words
A 2023 review of randomised trials in athletes found the evidence for rhodiola improving sports performance thin and inconsistent.
What was measured
That an anti-fatigue effect in sleep-deprived shift workers transfers to a performance effect in trained athletes
Effect estimate
No reviewed effect estimate exists for this record.
Limits
See the technical detail.
From the source
A 2023 systematic review of randomised controlled trials on Rhodiola rosea and sports performance in Phytotherapy Research assessed the trial base and found it heterogeneous in dose, extract, duration and outcome measure, with results that do not converge. Six of the eleven trials in the 2011 systematic review were on physical performance, so this is the same underlying literature re-examined a decade later with a sport-specific lens, and it did not consolidate.
Written into the record, not signed off as a reviewed claim
The fatigue evidence is a systematic review of small, heterogeneous trials
In plain words
A 2012 review of rhodiola for fatigue could not pool the studies, because they measured different things in different people for different lengths of time.
What was measured
That a specific effect size can be attributed to rhodiola for fatigue, when the trials cannot be pooled to produce one
Effect estimate
No reviewed effect estimate exists for this record.
Limits
See the technical detail.
From the source
Ishaque et al. reviewed the randomised evidence for R. rosea in physical and mental fatigue in BMC Complementary and Alternative Medicine and reported that the studies varied so much in population, extract, dose, duration and outcome that a meaningful pooled estimate could not be produced. Absence of a pooled estimate is not evidence of absence of effect. It does mean the effect size is unknown, which is what the marketing implicitly supplies.
This order is fixed in code and does not count clicks or time on the page.
What is not here
8 questions this page could not answer
These sections were prepared and left out because there was nothing to put in them. They are listed rather than hidden, so the gaps in this record are visible.
What was measured, goal by goal — found nothing in the sources checked.
How close this is to real life — found nothing in the sources checked.
Felt, measured, or meaningful — found nothing in the sources checked.
How long anything takes — found nothing in the sources checked.
What it may clash with — found nothing in the sources checked.
Other ways to the same goal — found nothing in the sources checked.
How this medicine reached us — found nothing in the sources checked.
What changed on this page — found nothing in the sources checked.
The record as stored
The full record, for auditing
Everything above is built from what is below. This layer keeps the technical vocabulary, record identifiers and every stored row, so a reader who wants to check the page can.
The older medicine-wide conclusion held in this record
Written for a clinical reader, and about the medicine as a whole rather than about one indication, population and set of trials. RNAWiki does not treat it as a programme conclusion and no reviewer has signed it off in that form. It is here word for word because it is what the record holds.
Eleven placebo-controlled trials, moderate to good methodological quality, effects reported on physical and mental performance — and, in the systematic review's own words, a lack of independent replication of any single one of them.
Recorded evidence blocks (3)
Q1
Which one trial of Rhodiola rosea posted no result?
Posted no result
1 of 1 completed trials
Registrations
NCT07225413
Completion dates
oldest 2022-12-31
Show the evidence
TrialNCT07225413
2022-12-31
Q2
At the median, Rhodiola rosea's trials enrolled 60 people — anything larger?
Median enrolment
60
Largest enrolment
114
Registered trials counted
7
Q3
Who carried Rhodiola rosea to phase 4, and who else?
Hospital de Clinicas de Porto Alegre, 2 studies: the lead sponsor the registry names most often for Rhodiola rosea; 6 lead sponsors in all; highest registry phase 4, 2 of 7 studies at it. ClinicalTrials.gov · 2026-09-01
✗ required summary fields resolved: 4 required field(s) not terminal: Why people use it, Best-supported result, Biggest unanswered question, Human evidence
✓ public claims reviewed: 0 reviewed claim(s); drafts are never rendered
✓ source coverage passed: 2 source rows
✓ no critical contamination: no quarantine open
✓ canonical metadata passed: slug and display name present
✓ no raw internal fields: enforced by the copy-contract test over the rendered page
This is a record of evidence. It is not medical advice, and it does not say this substance suits you. Nothing here says any substance on RNAWiki is appropriate for a child.