Background
Methods
Datasets and research technique
Inclusion and exclusion criteria
Data extraction
Quality assessment and risk of bias
Data synthesis and statistical analysis
Assessment and identification of heterogeneity
Results
Literature selection
Study characteristics
Study | Country | Sample size(T/C) | Sex (M/F) | Age (mean, range) | Diagnostic criteria | Intervention of experimental group | Intervention of control group | Dose of berberine | Duration (weeks) | Outcomes |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Zhao et al. (2022) | China | 80 (40/40) | 50/30 | T: 46.57 (33–70) C: 46.85 (35–72) | I | Berberine + metformin | Metformin | 0.2 g tid | 12 | 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 12, 13 |
Hu et al. (2021) | China | 118 (58/60) | 64/54 | T: 42.85 (31–54) C: 43.21 (30–56) | I | Berberine + metformin | Placebo + metformin | 0.5 g tid | 24 | 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18 |
Han (2017) | China | 100 (50/50) | 49/51 | T: 69.8 (66–82) C: 69.5 (65–80) | I | Berberine + metformin | Metformin | 0.2 g–0.4 g tid | 8 | 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 12, 13, 16 |
Cao et al. (2012) | China | 78 (40/38) | 46/32 | T: 52.23 (29–69) C: 51.26 (33–67) | II | Berberine + metformin | Metformin | 0.5 g tid | 16 | 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 10, 16, 17, 18 |
Bai et al. (2011) | China | 68 (38/30) | 39/29 | T: 56.6 (35–79) C: 56.1 (32–82) | II | Berberine | LSI | 0.5 g tid | 12 | 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 10, 16, 18 |
Stephen et al. (2021) | England | 87 [32/29 (0.5 g bid)/26 (1 g bid)] | NR | T: 58 (40–75) C (0.5 g bid): 58 (26–75) C (1 g bid): 53 (27–72) | NR | Berberine | Placebo | 0.5 g bid/1 g bid | 18 | 2, 3, 5, 17, 18 |
Lida et al. (2022) | Iran | 48 (24/24) | 36/12 | T: 42.2 (NR) C: 40.6 (NR) | NR | Berberine | LSI | 6.35 g/day | 7 | 1, 2, 10, 17, 18 |
Yan et al. (2015) | China | 108 (53/55) | NR | T: 50.64 (NR) C: 50.72 (NR) | NR | LSI + berberine | LSI | 0.5 g tid | 16 | 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 10, 16, 17, 18 |
Cui (2016) | China | 80 (40/40) | 58/22 | T: 51.59 (37–65) C: 50.85 (39–62) | I | Berberine + metformin | Metformin | 0.5 g tid | 16 | 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 7 |
Ning et al. (2013) | China | 44 (22/22) | 24/20 | T: NR (35–70) C: NR (35–70) | I | Berberine + metformin | Metformin | 0.5 g tid | 16 | 1, 2, 6, 7 |
Risk of bias assessment
Effects of berberine on liver functions
Alanine transaminase
Number of comparisons | Result SMD [95% CI] | P-value for overall effect | I2 (%) | P-value for subgroup differences | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
TG | |||||
All comparisons | 11 | − 0.59 [− 0.73, − 0.45] | < 0.00001 | 73 | |
Total intake of berberine (g) | 0.46 | ||||
< 100 | 2 | − 1.12 [− 2.39, 0.15] | 0.08 | 93 | |
100–200 | 6 | − 0.56 [− 0.76, − 0.37] | < 0.00001 | 0 | |
> 200 | 3 | − 0.25 [− 0.92, 0.41] | 0.45 | 82 | |
Daily intake of berberine (g/d) | 0.21 | ||||
< 1.5 | 3 | − 0.88 [− 1.71, − 0.06] | 0.04 | 89 | |
= 1.5 | 6 | − 0.63 [− 0.81, − 0.45] | < 0.00001 | 0 | |
> 1.5 | 2 | 0.02 [− 0.73, 0.78] | 0.95 | 74 | |
Duration of berberine intervention (months) | 0.89 | ||||
< 4 | 4 | − 0.71 [− 1.53, 0.12] | 0.09 | 91 | |
= 4 | 4 | − 0.51 [− 0.74, − 0.29] | < 0.00001 | 0 | |
> 4 | 3 | − 0.56 [− 0.82, − 0.30] | < 0.0001 | 0 | |
Whether or not diabetes was combined | 0.68 | ||||
Only NAFLD | 3 | − 0.78 [− 2.00, 0.44] | 0.21 | 94 | |
NAFLD with diabetes | 8 | − 0.53 [− 0.68, − 0.37] | < 0.00001 | 0 | |
TC | |||||
All comparisons | 9 | − 0.74 [− 1.00, − 0.49] | < 0.00001 | 63 | |
Total intake of berberine (g) | 0.47 | ||||
< 100 | 2 | − 0.69 [− 1.15, − 0.23] | 0.003 | 56 | |
100–200 | 5 | − 0.89 [− 1.23, − 0.56] | < 0.00001 | 58 | |
> 200 | 2 | − 0.39 [− 1.19, 0.41] | 0.34 | 82 | |
Daily intake of berberine (g/d) | 0.008 | ||||
< 1.5 | 2 | − 0.69 [− 1.15, − 0.23] | 0.003 | 56 | |
= 1.5 | 6 | − 0.87 [− 1.14, − 0.61] | < 0.00001 | 49 | |
> 1.5 | 1 | 0.05 [− 0.52, 0.61] | 0.86 | NA | |
Duration of berberine intervention (months) | 0.37 | ||||
< 4 | 4 | − 0.54 [− 0.92, − 0.16] | 0.005 | 61 | |
= 4 | 4 | − 0.94 [− 1.35, − 0.53] | < 0.00001 | 65 | |
> 4 | 1 | − 0.77 [− 1.14, − 0.39] | < 0.0001 | NA | |
Whether or not diabetes was combined | 0.41 | ||||
Only NAFLD | 3 | − 0.56 [− 1.12, 0.01] | 0.05 | 73 | |
NAFLD with diabetes | 6 | − 0.82 [− 1.11, − 0.53] | < 0.00001 | 61 | |
LDL-C | |||||
All comparisons | 7 | − 0.53 [− 0.88, − 0.18] | 0.003 | 74 | |
Total intake of berberine (g) | 0.58 | ||||
< 100 | 0 | NA | NA | NA | |
100–200 | 4 | − 0.46 [− 0.99, 0.08] | 0.1 | 81 | |
> 200 | 3 | − 0.65 [− 1.10, − 0.20] | 0.004 | 59 | |
Daily intake of berberine (g/d) | 0.03 | ||||
< 1.5 | 1 | 0.18 [− 0.35, 0.70] | 0.51 | NA | |
= 1.5 | 4 | − 0.73 [− 1.17, − 0.29] | 0.001 | 76 | |
> 1.5 | 2 | − 0.44 [− 0.91, 0.03] | 0.07 | 29 | |
Duration of berberine intervention (months) | 0.92 | ||||
< 4 | 2 | − 0.66 [− 1.56, 0.24] | 0.15 | 82 | |
= 4 | 2 | − 0.43 [− 1.02, 0.15] | 0.15 | 74 | |
> 4 | 3 | − 0.50 [− 1.19, 0.18] | 0.15 | 83 | |
Whether or not diabetes was combined | 0.72 | ||||
Only NAFLD | 2 | − 0.66 [− 1.56, 0.24] | 0.15 | 82 | |
NAFLD with diabetes | 5 | − 0.48 [− 0.90, − 0.06] | 0.02 | 76 | |
HDL-C | |||||
All comparisons | 4 | 0.51 [− 0.12, 1.15] | 0.11 | 82 | |
Total intake of berberine (g) | 0.02 | ||||
< 100 | 0 | NA | NA | NA | |
100–200 | 3 | 0.29 [− 0.34, 0.91] | 0.37 | 82 | |
> 200 | 1 | 1.17 [0.77, 1.56] | < 0.00001 | NA | |
Daily intake of berberine (g/d) | 0.08 | ||||
< 1.5 | 0 | NA | NA | NA | |
= 1.5 | 3 | 0.70 [− 0.01, 1.42] | 0.05 | 89 | |
> 1.5 | 1 | − 0.12 [− 0.68, 0.45] | 0.69 | NA | |
Duration of berberine intervention (months) | < 0.0001 | ||||
< 4 | 1 | − 0.02 [− 0.12, 0.08] | 0.68 | NA | |
= 4 | 2 | 0.11 [− 0.10, 0.32] | 0.32 | 92 | |
> 4 | 1 | 0.27 [0.19, 0.35] | < 0.00001 | NA | |
Whether or not diabetes was combined | 0.08 | ||||
Only NAFLD | 1 | − 0.12 [− 0.68, 0.45] | 0.69 | NA | |
NAFLD with diabetes | 3 | 0.70 [− 0.01, 1.42] | 0.05 | 89 | |
ALT | |||||
All comparisons | 9 | − 0.72 [− 1.01, − 0.44] | < 0.00001 | 72 | |
Total intake of berberine (g) | 0.39 | ||||
< 100 | 2 | − 1.34 [− 2.50, − 0.18] | 0.02 | 92 | |
100–200 | 5 | − 0.53 [− 0.76, − 0.30] | < 0.00001 | 23 | |
> 200 | 2 | − 0.62 [− 0.93, − 0.32] | < 0.0001 | 0 | |
Daily intake of berberine (g/d) | 0.93 | ||||
< 1.5 | 2 | − 1.00 [− 2.85, 0.86] | 0.29 | 96 | |
= 1.5 | 6 | − 0.64 [− 0.81, − 0.47] | < 0.00001 | 0 | |
> 1.5 | 1 | − 0.68 [− 1.22, − 0.15] | 0.01 | NA | |
Duration of berberine intervention (months) | 0.29 | ||||
< 4 | 3 | − 1.11 [− 1.86, − 0.37] | 0.004 | 87 | |
= 4 | 3 | − 0.61 [− 0.86, − 0.37] | < 0.00001 | 0 | |
> 4 | 3 | − 0.45 [− 0.82, − 0.09] | 0.01 | 46 | |
Whether or not diabetes was combined | 0.26 | ||||
Only NAFLD | 2 | − 1.31 [− 2.55, − 0.06] | 0.04 | 91 | |
NAFLD with diabetes | 7 | − 0.58 [− 0.75, − 0.41] | < 0.00001 | 3 | |
AST | |||||
All comparisons | 7 | − 0.79 [− 1.17, − 0.40] | < 0.00001 | 82 | |
Total intake of berberine (g) | 0.1 | ||||
< 100 | 2 | − 1.33 [− 2.65, − 0.01] | 0.05 | 93 | |
100–200 | 4 | − 0.65 [− 0.91, − 0.40] | < 0.00001 | 22 | |
> 200 | 1 | − 0.25 [− 0.62, 0.11] | 0.17 | NA | |
Daily intake of berberine (g/d) | 0.26 | ||||
< 1.5 | 2 | − 1.33 [− 2.65, − 0.01] | 0.05 | 93 | |
= 1.5 | 5 | − 0.56 [− 0.82, − 0.31] | < 0.0001 | 43 | |
> 1.5 | 0 | NA | NA | NA | |
Duration of berberine intervention (months) | 0.08 | ||||
< 4 | 3 | − 1.20 [− 1.97, − 0.42] | 0.003 | 87 | |
= 4 | 3 | − 0.57 [− 0.82, − 0.32] | < 0.00001 | 4 | |
> 4 | 1 | − 0.25 [− 0.62, 0.11] | 0.17 | NA | |
Whether or not diabetes was combined | 0.08 | ||||
Only NAFLD | 2 | − 1.48 [− 2.52, − 0.44] | 0.005 | 87 | |
NAFLD with diabetes | 5 | − 0.52 [− 0.72, − 0.32] | < 0.00001 | 17 | |
GGT | |||||
All comparisons | 8 | − 0.62 [− 0.95, − 0.29] | 0.0002 | 77 | |
Total intake of berberine (g) | 0.24 | ||||
< 100 | 2 | − 1.15 [− 1.97, − 0.34] | 0.005 | 84 | |
100–200 | 4 | − 0.48 [− 0.77, − 0.19] | 0.001 | 38 | |
> 200 | 2 | − 0.32 [− 0.92, 0.27] | 0.29 | 70 | |
Daily intake of berberine (g/d) | 0.19 | ||||
< 1.5 | 3 | − 0.96 [− 1.55, − 0.37] | 0.002 | 78 | |
= 1.5 | 4 | − 0.36 [− 0.69, − 0.02] | 0.04 | 61 | |
> 1.5 | 1 | − 0.66 [− 1.21, − 0.12] | 0.02 | NA | |
Duration of berberine intervention (months) | 0.04 | ||||
< 4 | 3 | − 1.05 [− 1.55, − 0.55] | < 0.0001 | 71 | |
= 4 | 2 | − 0.30 [− 0.62, 0.02] | 0.06 | 17 | |
> 4 | 3 | − 0.38 [− 0.78, 0.03] | 0.07 | 54 | |
Whether or not diabetes was combined | 0.04 | ||||
Only NAFLD | 2 | − 1.22 [− 1.93, − 0.50] | 0.0009 | 75 | |
NAFLD with diabetes | 6 | − 0.42 [− 0.66, − 0.17] | 0.0009 | 46 | |
HOMA-IR | |||||
All comparisons | 5 | − 1.56 [− 2.54, − 0.58] | 0.002 | 96 | |
Total intake of berberine (g) | 0.12 | ||||
< 100 | 1 | − 0.44 [− 0.83, − 0.04] | 0.03 | NA | |
100–200 | 3 | − 2.40 [− 4.45, − 0.35] | 0.02 | 98 | |
> 200 | 1 | − 0.75 [− 1.12, − 0.37] | < 0.0001 | NA | |
Daily intake of berberine (g/d) | 0.03 | ||||
< 1.5 | 1 | − 0.44 [− 0.83, − 0.04] | 0.03 | NA | |
= 1.5 | 4 | − 1.91 [− 3.20, − 0.62] | 0.004 | 96 | |
> 1.5 | 0 | NA | NA | NA | |
Duration of berberine intervention (months) | 0.68 | ||||
< 4 | 2 | − 3.17 [− 8.58, 2.24] | 0.25 | 99 | |
= 4 | 2 | − 0.77 [− 1.57, 0.03] | 0.06 | 86 | |
> 4 | 1 | − 0.75 [− 1.12, − 0.37] | < 0.0001 | NA | |
Whether or not diabetes was combined | < 0.00001 | ||||
Only NAFLD | 1 | − 5.96 [− 7.09, − 4.82] | < 0.00001 | NA | |
NAFLD with diabetes | 4 | − 0.68 [− 1.04, − 0.33] | 0.0002 | 67 |
Aspartate transaminase
Glutamyl transpeptidase
Effects of berberine on lipid indices
Triglycerides
Total cholesterol
Low-density lipoprotein cholesterol
High-density lipoprotein cholesterol
Effects of berberine on homeostasis model assessment for insulin resistance
Effects of berberine on body mass index
Adverse effects of berberine
Study | Experimental group (n=) | Adverse effects (n=) | Adverse reaction symptom |
---|---|---|---|
Zhao et al. 2022 | 40 | 6 | Nausea (n = 2) Diarrhea (n = 2) Drowsiness (n = 2) |
Cao et al. (2012) | 38 | 9 | Nausea (n = 3) Diarrhea Fatigue Constipation (n = 6) |
Cui. (2016) | 40 | 15 | Dizziness (n = 3) Fatigue (n = 4) Nausea (n = 5) Diarrhea (n = 3) |
Ning et al. (2013) | 22 | 1 | Gastrointestinal reaction |
Harrison et al. (0.5 g) (2021) | 33 | 9 | Diarrhea (n = 4) Gastroesophageal reflux disease (n = 2) Nausea (n = 1) Headache (n = 2) |
Harrison et al. (1 g) (2021) | 34 | 15 | Diarrhea (n = 9) Gastroesophageal reflux disease (n = 0) Nausea (n = 15) Headache (n = 1) |
Publication bias
Sensitivity analysis
Discussion
Summary of the main results
Potential mechanisms of berberine in the treatment of NAFLD
Quality of evidence
Quality assessment | No of patients | Effect | Quality | Importance | ||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
No of studies | Design | Risk of bias | Inconsistency | Indirectness | Imprecision | Other considerations | Berberine | Control | Relative (95% CI) | Absolute | ||
GGT (better indicated by lower values) | ||||||||||||
8 | Randomised trials | No serious risk of bias | No serious inconsistency | No serious indirectness | No serious imprecision | None | 336 | 326 | – | SMD 0.62 lower (0.95 to 0.29 lower) | ⊕⊕⊕⊕ HIGH | IMPORTANT |
TG (better indicated by lower values) | ||||||||||||
11 | Randomised trials | No serious risk of bias | No serious inconsistency | No serious indirectness | No serious imprecision | None | 422 | 421 | – | SMD 0.59 lower (0.86 to 0.31 lower) | ⊕⊕⊕⊕ HIGH | IMPORTANT |
AST (better indicated by lower values) | ||||||||||||
7 | Randomised trials | No serious risk of bias | No serious inconsistency | No serious indirectness | No serious imprecision | None | 321 | 311 | – | SMD 0.79 lower (1.17 to 0.4 lower) | ⊕⊕⊕⊕ HIGH | IMPORTANT |
ALT (better indicated by lower values) | ||||||||||||
9 | Randomised trials | No serious risk of bias | No serious inconsistency | No serious indirectness | No serious imprecision | None | 376 | 375 | – | SMD 0.72 lower (1.01 to 0.44 lower) | ⊕⊕⊕⊕ HIGH | IMPORTANT |
LDL-C (better indicated by lower values) | ||||||||||||
7 | Randomised trials | No serious risk of bias | No serious inconsistency | No serious indirectness | No serious imprecision | none | 267 | 263 | – | SMD 0.53 lower (0.88 to 0.18 lower) | ⊕⊕⊕⊕ HIGH | IMPORTANT |
HDL-C (better indicated by lower values) | ||||||||||||
4 | Randomised trials | No serious risk of bias | No serious inconsistency | No serious indirectness | No serious imprecision | None | 177 | 175 | – | SMD 0.51 higher (0.12 lower to 1.15 higher) | ⊕⊕⊕⊕ HIGH | IMPORTANT |
BMI (better indicated by lower values) | ||||||||||||
5 | Randomised trials | No serious risk of bias | No serious inconsistency | No serious indirectness | No serious imprecision | none | 215 | 205 | – | SMD 0.58 lower (0.77 to 0.38 lower) | ⊕⊕⊕⊕ HIGH | IMPORTANT |
TC (better indicated by lower values) | ||||||||||||
9 | Randomised trials | No serious risk of bias | No serious inconsistency | No serious indirectness | No serious imprecision | none | 367 | 357 | – | SMD 0.74 lower (1 to 0.49 lower) | ⊕⊕⊕⊕ HIGH | IMPORTANT |
HOMA-IR (better indicated by lower values) | ||||||||||||
5 | Randomised trials | No serious risk of bias | No serious inconsistency | No serious indirectness | No serious imprecision | None1 | 241 | 231 | – | SMD 1.56 lower (2.54 to 0.58 lower) | ⊕⊕⊕⊕ HIGH | IMPORTANT |