Skip to the main content
Open WellbeingWhat the studies actually measured

Inflammation and oxidative stress

Berberineand High-sensitivity CRP

Both sources here measured lower high-sensitivity CRP.

How sure anyone can be

Very low certainty, level 1 of 4

Any estimate here is very uncertain.

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.

-1.86-1.54 standardised effect size-1.22

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, 2022 · 52 studies pooled

    Very low certainty, level 1 of 4

    The effects of berberine on inflammatory markers in Chinese patients with metabolic syndrome and related disorders: a meta‑analysis of randomized controlled trials.

    Inflammopharmacology. 2022;30(3):1063-1077. doi:10.1007/s10787-022-00976-2. PMID:35352233.

    Number reported
    -1.54 standardised effect size
    Which way it went
    Lower
    Likely range
    -1.86 to -1.22
    Source’s own words
    standardised mean difference for CRP vs control (the review pools CRP, not specifically high-sensitivity CRP)
    Who was studied
    Adult with metabolic syndrome
    Compared with
    control (comparator not detailed in the abstract)
    Amount taken
    Not in the abstract
    For how long
    Not in the abstract
    Disagreement between studies
    Not in the abstract
    Kind of record
    Journal article
    How this rating was reachedstarts at High, 3 steps down: risk of bias, indirectness 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. Indirectness brought it down to Lowthe outcome measured is a proxy for the target outcomeReported in the abstract
    4. Imprecision brought it down to Very lowthe abstract does not state how many participants were pooledNot in the abstract
    5. Ends at Very low3 steps down.
    Inconsistency
    No high disagreement reported between the 52 studies it pooled

    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

  • Systematic review, 2019 · 5 studies pooled

    Very low certainty, level 1 of 4

    Effect of Berberine on C-reactive protein: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

    Complement Ther Med. 2019;46:81-86. doi:10.1016/j.ctim.2019.08.002. PMID:31519292.

    Number reported
    -0.64 mg/L
    Which way it went
    Lower
    Likely range
    -0.67 to -0.61
    Source’s own words
    mg/L CRP, pooled mean difference vs control
    Who was studied
    Adult
    Compared with
    control
    Amount taken
    Not in the abstract
    For how long
    Not in the abstract
    Disagreement between studies
    I2 = 0.0%
    Kind of record
    Journal article
    How this rating was reachedstarts at High, 3 steps down: risk of bias, indirectness 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. Indirectness brought it down to Lowthe outcome measured is a proxy for the target outcomeReported in the abstract
    4. Imprecision brought it down to Very lowthe abstract does not state how many participants were pooledNot in the abstract
    5. Ends at Very low3 steps down.
    Inconsistency
    No high disagreement reported between the 5 studies it pooled

    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

  • Two do not say how many people took part.
  • Amount taken — 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 Berberine

Five of the 14 things on our list for Berberine have no reading here yet:

  • Diastolic blood pressure
  • Interleukin-6
  • Sex hormone binding globulin
  • Systolic blood pressure
  • Total testosterone

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.