The clearest current evidence is for metabolic syndrome and type 2 diabetes or glucose control. Cholesterol and weight findings still look promising but now sit one tier lower, while fatty liver (NAFLD) and PCOS are more mixed. Poor oral bioavailability still explains why trials often pair berberine with absorption-focused formulations.
Each row is a different health effect. A means the support looks strongest, B likely helpful, C mixed or modest, and — not enough human evidence yet.
Papers are individual studies. Research reviews summarize evidence from multiple studies, such as systematic reviews and meta-analyses.
Dose, form and timing based on trials in the database.
Products that pass third-party quality testing.
Product quality data coming soon
Product recommendations are being built from USP Verified, NSF Certified, and Labdoor test data. Products will only appear here after the supplement itself clears the evidence bar above — and only if the product passes third-party purity testing.
Grades come from 57 unique research papers indexed from PubMed — including 27 meta-analyses, 18 systematic reviews, and 75 randomized trials. Sixty-three of 121 health-effect records were rated low-confidence due to combination products (berberine with silymarin, milk thistle, or Chinese medicine herbs where the contribution can't be isolated) or mixed human/preclinical review abstracts. Each supplement is graded by health effect using a certainty × effect matrix applied across PubMed evidence per health effect. Cochrane reviews and high-quality systematic reviews carry the most weight. From abstract-only data, "high certainty" is rare — most A grades come from moderate certainty plus consistent meaningful-positive evidence. See Methodology for full detail.
Read the full methodology → · Download all 57 citations (PDF)