Skip to the main content
Open WellbeingWhat the studies actually measured

Heart and blood pressure

Piperineand Diastolic blood pressure

Two sources here, and they say different things: one measured lower diastolic blood pressure and one found no clear difference.

How sure anyone can be

Low certainty, level 2 of 4

Further research is likely to change this.

The most certain of the two findings here; each record carries its own.

The numbers reported

No number has been put on this yet. Two sources recorded only which way the numbers went — for now, that is all we have here.

Two sources, newest first

We do not pick between these or average them into one number.

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.

  • Randomised trial, 2024 · 72 participants

    Low certainty, level 2 of 4

    The effect of curcumin-piperine supplementation on lipid profile, glycemic index, inflammation, and blood pressure in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus and hypertriglyceridemia.

    Phytother Res. 2024;38(11):5150-5161. doi:10.1002/ptr.8304. PMID:39165011.

    Number reported
    Not in the abstract
    Which way it went
    No clear difference
    Likely range
    Not in the abstract
    Source’s own words
    no effect size is reported: the abstract lists blood pressure among the parameters with no significant between-group change (p-value >0.05) and prints no magnitude
    Who was studied
    Adult with type 2 diabetes and hypertriglyceridemia
    Compared with
    placebo
    Amount taken
    5 mg/day piperine (with 500 mg/day curcuminoids)
    For how long
    84 days
    Disagreement between studies
    Not in the abstract
    Kind of record
    Journal article
    How this rating was reachedstarts at High, 2 steps down: risk of bias 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. Imprecision brought it down to Lowthe abstract reports no confidence interval for the estimateNot in the abstract
    4. Ends at Low2 steps down.
    Checked, nothing to step it down for
    indirectness
    Inconsistency
    One study, so there was nothing to disagree

    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

  • Randomised trial, 2023 · 66 participants

    Low certainty, level 2 of 4

    The effects of curcumin-piperine supplementation on inflammatory, oxidative stress and metabolic indices in patients with ischemic stroke in the rehabilitation phase: a randomized controlled trial.

    Nutr J. 2023;22(1):69. doi:10.1186/s12937-023-00905-1. PMID:38082237.

    Number reported
    Not in the abstract
    Which way it went
    Lower
    Likely range
    Not in the abstract
    Source’s own words
    no effect size is reported: the abstract gives only a p value for the between-group comparison, with no magnitude or interval
    Who was studied
    Adult with ischemic stroke in rehabilitation
    Compared with
    placebo
    Amount taken
    5 mg/day piperine (with 500 mg/day curcumin)
    For how long
    84 days
    Disagreement between studies
    Not in the abstract
    Kind of record
    Journal article
    How this rating was reachedstarts at High, 2 steps down: risk of bias 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. Imprecision brought it down to Lowthe abstract reports no confidence interval for the estimateNot in the abstract
    4. Ends at Low2 steps down.
    Checked, nothing to step it down for
    indirectness
    Inconsistency
    One study, so there was nothing to disagree

    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

  • None gives a number at all, only which way it went.
  • Two give no likely range, so how precise those numbers are is unknown.

Something nobody wrote down is never a zero and never a guess.

Still to read for Piperine

Five of the 17 things on our list for Piperine have no reading here yet:

  • Atrial fibrillation incidence
  • Carotid intima-media thickness (CIMT)
  • Fibrinogen
  • Oxidative stress (F2-isoprostanes)
  • 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.