Black seed (Nigella sativa)

View my plan →

The short answer

Small heterogeneous trials examine glucose, lipids, blood pressure, and respiratory symptoms.

Evidence and scope: Mixed evidence
This status does not grade the ingredient for every goal, outcome, or person.
Important limitation: Trials are inconsistent or small, so a reliable clinically important benefit is not established.
Before deciding: Key concern: Pregnancy, anticoagulants, glucose/blood-pressure medicines, kidney/liver disease, and surgery require review.

01 / PRACTICAL GUIDE

Dose, absorption, and combinations

These are indication-specific reference or studied ranges—not a personalized prescription. Start with the objective, then check the form, label, medicines, and health conditions.

Reference range by objective

Meeting usual needs1–2 g/day seed powder or 1–2.5 mL oil twice daily in trials

Reference or studied range—not a personalized prescription. The product label or a clinician may specify a different dose.

Dose source ↗

More is not automatically better. A clinician or product label may specify a different amount.

Absorption / solubilityFat-soluble / lipid-based

Fat-soluble or lipid-based. Absorption generally improves with a meal containing fat.

How it is commonly taken

Take with food; oil and seed products are not equivalent.

Do not combine casually

Pregnancy, anticoagulants, glucose/blood-pressure medicines, kidney/liver disease, and surgery require review.

Dose and use source ↗

Dose and use links lead to primary or official source material. Search links are discovery tools, not proof that every returned paper applies.

02 / EVIDENCE

What the research says

We keep supportive, mixed, negative, safety, and contextual findings together. The headline never replaces the underlying papers.

1research papers in this ledger

11unique primary studies represented

860unique participants represented

These are audited counts for this JIVANA collection, not search-result totals. Participants are counted once when multiple papers use the same cohort; review papers are not added again to participant totals.

Open the research timelineResearch timeline

Entries are ordered by publication year. A study period appears only when the source reports it.

2016

Mixed or qualifiedPMID 27512971

Nigella sativa supplementation and blood pressure

Short-term pooled blood pressure fell by about 3.3/2.8 mmHg relative to controls, with moderate heterogeneity and different effects between powder and oil. Long-term blood-pressure control and cardiovascular outcomes remain unestablished.

Published: 2016Duration: Mean 8.3 weeksn=860 participants11 primary studies represented

Study design and methods

Design: Systematic review and random-effects meta-analysis of 11 randomized controlled trials
Population: 860 people with or without hypertension
Intervention: Black seed powder or oil versus placebo or standard treatment
Outcome: Systolic and diastolic blood pressure

Open research record ↗

Unscreened discovery appendix—not evidence124 candidate publicationsSearch run: Aug 21, 2026

Complete for the displayed PubMed query at the search timestamp—not for all databases or every possible synonym. Candidates can be irrelevant, duplicate the same study, or report negative findings. They are never summed as evidence or participants until screened.

03 / SOURCES

Start with the source material

Official evidence overviewPubMed bounded human-evidence search Live PubMed discovery searchNational Library of Medicine

The live search is for discovery only. Search-result counts change and are not included in the audited totals above.

Recent PubMed discovery recordsDirect links to the first 12 records returned by the reproducible search. These are discovery candidates—not reviewed summaries or a count of supportive findings.

04 / EXPERT CONTEXT

Expert context—not evidence

Expert positions are dated context—not scientific evidence. They never raise the evidence status or become consensus by repetition.

No direct, source-verified endorsement is currently recorded. Research authorship or discussion alone is not treated as endorsement.