Tier 2 — strong

Berberine and health outcomes: an overview of systematic reviews

Shi L, Wang W, Jing C, Hu J, Liao X
BMC complementary medicine and therapies 2025 25(1):147

Bibliography

PubMed
PMID 40269802
PubMed Central
PMC12016319
Funding
Indexed support: China Academy of Chinese Medical Sciences. See the publication for grant details.
Competing interests
The authors declared no competing interests in the publication.

Study snapshot

DesignOverview of systematic reviews
ModelPublished human studies
Sample54 systematic reviews
InterventionEvidence synthesis; interventions and comparators vary across included studies
DurationNo new treatment; included-study durations vary
EndpointsPooled clinical or metabolic outcomes; Risk of bias and heterogeneity; Adverse-event reporting

What the study showed, in plain terms

Most included reviews reported favorable signals, but only one was rated high quality and forty-five very low quality. Several disease areas reused many of the same trials.

Key findings

  • Most included reviews reported favorable signals, but only one was rated high quality and forty-five very low quality. Several disease areas reused many of the same trials.

What this study can and cannot tell us

Review overlap prevents treating each positive meta-analysis as independent confirmation.

Citation network

Articles citing this research paper

1 article

Biohack Blueprint analyses that reference this study in their evidence base.

Editorial review

Reviewed by the Biohack Blueprint research team

Last verified