This page shows what was measured, who it was measured in, and what that does not settle.
What Crocus Sativus Flower does in the body
Sold for mood and anxiety.
Saffron stigma contains crocins, which give the colour, picrocrocin, which gives the taste, and safranal, which gives the smell. Animal work suggests the crocins interfere with serotonin reuptake, which would put saffron loosely in the same family as an SSRI. Nothing has confirmed that in a person. What the trials show is that people taking saffron rate themselves as less depressed and less anxious, and that when a trained clinician does the rating instead, the difference disappears.
What happened in people
Across 34 studies, people taking saffron reported better depression and anxiety scores.
✓ 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
Doctors’ ratings did not improve, and most studies came from one region with signs that negative results were missing.
Where it acts
Central nervous system, proposed rather than demonstrated
Kind of result
The kind of result is not recorded
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 substance registry classes this as structurallydiverse.
FDA substance registry · 00IF91KFKQ · read 2026-08-29
It is recorded as coming from CROCUS SATIVUS WHOLE. The part recorded is flower.
FDA substance registry · 00IF91KFKQ · read 2026-08-29
The supplement label database classes it as botanical, under the name Saffron.
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 96 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.
Pooled effect on BDI, BAI, HDRS, HARS and POMS in adults over interventions of at least four weeks
BDI P < 0.001 and BAI P = 0.003; HDRS, HARS and POMS not significant
Repeated elsewhere
Partially Replicated
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. Recorded as endpoint not met because the clinician-rated scales showed no effect. Heterogeneity was 92.3% for BDI and 94.8% for BAI, which is very high.
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 stigma extract
Interval reported. Not recorded in this summary
Written into the record, not signed off as a reviewed claim.
Pooled effect size for depressive and anxiety symptoms versus placebo and versus pharmacotherapy
✓ The study showed what it set out to show
Who was studied
Marx 2019 meta-analysis (23 studies)
How many people
0
Study design
Systematic review and meta-analysis
Compared against
Not recorded for this study
Kind of result
A number that stands in for health
What was found
g = 0.99 P < 0.001 depression; g = 0.95 P = 0.006 anxiety
Repeated elsewhere
Partially Replicated
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. Egger's regression test found evidence of publication bias, and the authors flagged lack of regional diversity. Sample size recorded as 0 because the review reports study counts rather than a single pooled total.
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 stigma extract
Interval reported. Not recorded in this summary
Written into the record, not signed off as a reviewed claim.
Depression score over six weeks compared with fluoxetine 20 mg/day
✓ The study showed what it set out to show
Who was studied
Noorbala 2005 (saffron versus fluoxetine, mild to moderate depression)
How many people
40
Study design
Double-blind randomised active-controlled
Compared against
Not recorded for this study
Kind of result
A number that stands in for health
What was found
F = 0.13, df = 1, P = 0.71 — no significant difference between arms
Repeated elsewhere
Partially Replicated
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. Single centre, 20 per arm, six weeks, no placebo group. A non-significant difference at this sample size is what an underpowered trial produces whether or not a difference exists.
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 stigma 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
Crocus Sativus Flower
What a person takes: Oral capsule or tablet of standardised stigma extract.
The measurement behind this step
Sold as a dietary supplement with no premarket efficacy review. Commercial extracts are standardised to a stated crocin or safranal content and are branded, and the trials are extract-specific. Given documented adulteration in the raw spice market, a certificate of analysis on the finished extract is the only thing connecting a product to the evidence.
Getting in
A standardised stigma extract, with three marker families
The capsule contains an extract of the flower's stigma, standardised on the compounds that give saffron its colour, taste and smell.
╌╌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
Crocins are diglycosylated crocetin esters responsible for colour; picrocrocin is the bitter glycoside; safranal is the volatile aroma compound derived from picrocrocin. Standardisation is on crocin and safranal, not on a demonstrated active moiety.
The large coloured molecule is too big to absorb intact, so the gut removes its sugars first.
╌╌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
Crocin is hydrolysed in the intestinal lumen and at the brush border to crocetin, which is far smaller and lipophilic enough to be absorbed. What circulates is therefore crocetin and its conjugates, not the crocin the product is standardised on.
A proposed serotonergic action that has not been shown in a person
The favoured explanation is a mild SSRI-like effect. No human study has demonstrated it.
──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
Animal work reports serotonin reuptake inhibition and NMDA antagonism for crocin and safranal. No human target-engagement study, receptor occupancy measurement or central pharmacokinetic study exists for either.
The trained observer does not see what the participant reports, which is the finding that needs explaining.
╌╌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
HDRS, HARS and POMS all showed no significant effect in the same analysis. The divergence between self-report and observer-rated instruments is the most informative single fact in the saffron literature, and it is the one the marketing never mentions.
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.
Adults with low mood or mild anxiety, often as an alternative to an antidepressant they do not want to take.
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
Every clinician-rated outcome in the largest and most recent meta-analysis
Regional diversity: the trial base remains geographically concentrated fifteen years after the first review said so
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 stigma 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 supplement ingredient; no medicines register records an approval.
No source is stored against this line.
What is in the pack
Sold as a dietary supplement with no premarket efficacy review. Commercial extracts are standardised to a stated crocin or safranal content and are branded, and the trials are extract-specific. Given documented adulteration in the raw spice market, a certificate of analysis on the finished extract is the only thing connecting a product to the 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 and what that means for what is in the pack.
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
Well tolerated in trials at the amounts studied, with side-effect rates not significantly different from fluoxetine in the head-to-head comparison. High doses of saffron are toxic and abortifacient in the traditional literature, and the amounts in extracts are far below that range. No serious safety signal has emerged from the randomised trials.
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 stigma 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
Commercial extracts are standardised to a stated crocin or safranal content and are branded, and the trials are extract-specific. Given documented adulteration in the raw spice market, a certificate of analysis on the finished extract is the only thing connecting a product to the 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 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 saffron is equivalent to fluoxetine, on the strength of a 40-patient six-week single-centre trial with no placebo arm
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 pooled effect size near 1.0 is the true effect when the same analysis detected publication bias
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 improvement on a self-report inventory establishes an antidepressant effect when the observer-rated scales in the same dataset show nothing
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 Crocus Sativus Flower 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.
Thirty-four trials: self-reported depression and anxiety scores improved
In plain words
Across 34 randomised trials in 1,769 people, saffron improved the questionnaires people fill in about themselves.
What was measured
Weighted mean difference in Beck Depression Inventory and Beck Anxiety Inventory
Effect estimate
No reviewed effect estimate exists for this record.
Limits
See the technical detail.
From the source
A 2026 GRADE-assessed systematic review and meta-analysis pooled 34 randomised controlled trials comprising 1,769 participants, with interventions of at least four weeks and saffron as the sole difference between arms. Beck Depression Inventory scores fell by a weighted mean difference of -4.39 (95% CI -6.64 to -2.15, P < 0.001, I2 = 92.3%, 14 trials, 817 participants) and Beck Anxiety Inventory scores by -5.06 (95% CI -8.44 to -1.68, P = 0.003, I2 = 94.8%, six trials, 339 participants). Certainty of evidence was rated moderate. The heterogeneity above 90% on both estimates is very high.
Written into the record, not signed off as a reviewed claim
No significant effect on any clinician-rated scale in the same analysis
In plain words
When a trained clinician did the rating instead of the participant, the effect vanished.
What was measured
Hamilton Depression Rating Scale, Hamilton Anxiety Rating Scale and Profile of Mood States
Effect estimate
No reviewed effect estimate exists for this record.
Limits
This entry records a failure.
From the source
The same 2026 meta-analysis found no significant effects for the Hamilton Depression Rating Scale, the Hamilton Anxiety Rating Scale or the Profile of Mood States. The authors wrote that the lack of clinician-rated effects underscores the need for high-quality trials. This split is diagnostic rather than incidental: self-report instruments are the ones most sensitive to expectation, and an intervention that moves them while leaving trained-observer scales unmoved is behaving the way a strong placebo behaves.
Written into the record, not signed off as a reviewed claim
The earlier meta-analysis found publication bias and a lack of regional diversity
In plain words
A 2019 review reported very large effects and then said the pattern of results suggested negative trials were missing, and that nearly all the trials came from one place.
What was measured
That a pooled effect size near 1.0 reflects the true effect, when the same analysis detected publication bias
Effect estimate
No reviewed effect estimate exists for this record.
Limits
See the technical detail.
From the source
Marx et al. pooled 23 studies and reported a large positive effect size for saffron against placebo for depressive symptoms (Hedges g = 0.99, P < 0.001) and anxiety symptoms (g = 0.95, P = 0.006), and a large effect as an adjunct to antidepressants (g = 1.23, P = 0.028). Egger's regression test found evidence of publication bias. The authors concluded that further trials are required because of that bias and the lack of regional diversity. An effect size approaching 1.0 for any depression intervention is larger than most approved antidepressants achieve against placebo, which is itself a reason for caution rather than enthusiasm.
Written into the record, not signed off as a reviewed claim
Noorbala 2005: no significant difference from fluoxetine in 40 outpatients
In plain words
The first head-to-head trial found saffron and fluoxetine performing similarly in 40 people with mild-to-moderate depression over six weeks.
What was measured
Hamilton Depression Rating Scale over six weeks against fluoxetine
Effect estimate
No reviewed effect estimate exists for this record.
Limits
See the technical detail.
From the source
Forty adult outpatients meeting DSM-IV criteria for major depression, mild to moderate, were randomised in a double-blind single-centre six-week trial at Roozbeh Hospital, Tehran, to saffron stigma hydro-alcoholic extract 30 mg/day or fluoxetine 20 mg/day. Saffron was found effective similarly to fluoxetine (F = 0.13, df = 1, P = 0.71), with no significant difference in observed side effects. The authors themselves concluded that a large-scale trial is justified. Twenty patients per arm without a placebo group cannot establish equivalence: a trial this size lacks the power to detect a difference that matters, and finding no difference is the expected outcome regardless.
Written into the record, not signed off as a reviewed claim
First-grade saffron is rare in the market, and new adulterants keep appearing
In plain words
Testing market samples found widespread adulteration and identified adulterant materials nobody had catalogued before.
What was measured
That a commercial saffron supplement contains the material the trials tested
Effect estimate
No reviewed effect estimate exists for this record.
Limits
See the technical detail.
From the source
A 2019 Food Chemistry study applied multiple analytical tests to commercial saffron samples, found new adulterant materials, and reported that first-grade saffron is rare in the market. Documented adulterants include safflower, gardenia, turmeric, marigold, dyed plant fibres and synthetic colourants. For a spice this is a commercial fraud problem. For a supplement taken for depression it is an identity problem: a product that is not what it says cannot be connected to the trial evidence at all.
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.
Thirty-four randomised trials show saffron improving self-reported depression and anxiety scores with moderate GRADE certainty — and no significant effect on any clinician-rated scale, which is exactly the pattern an expectation effect produces.
Recorded evidence blocks (2)
Q1
Which 2 trials of Crocus Sativus Flower posted no result?
Posted no result
2 of 2 completed trials
Registrations
NCT03372109 and NCT05211063
Completion dates
oldest 2018-03-22; newest 2023-05-05
Show the evidence
Trial
NCT03372109
2018-03-22
NCT05211063
2023-05-05
Q2
At the median, Crocus Sativus Flower's trials enrolled 65 people — anything larger?
Median enrolment
65
Largest enrolment
180
Registered trials counted
6
Where it is registeredIdentifiers, relations and other names
Liver Formula 2102, Uterine Formula 2105, Jaysuing Pain Relief Knee Patches, Liver Formula 2102 / Uterine Formula 2105 / Jaysuing Pain Relief Knee Patches, Sold as affron, Safr'Inside and other standardised Crocus sativus stigma extracts
✗ 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.