Chasteberry (Vitex)

View my plan →

The short answer

Standardized extracts may improve premenstrual symptoms; fertility and other claims are less certain.

Evidence and scope: Conditional or population-specific
This status does not grade the ingredient for every goal, outcome, or person.
Important limitation: Benefit depends on the population, formulation, baseline status, and objective; results should not be generalized.
Before deciding: Key concern: Pregnancy, breastfeeding, fertility treatment, hormonal contraception, antipsychotics, and dopamine medicines require review.

01 / PRACTICAL GUIDE

Dose, absorption, and combinations

These are indication-specific reference or studied ranges—not a personalized prescription. Start with the objective, then check the form, label, medicines, and health conditions.

Reference range by objective

Premenstrual symptoms20–40 mg/day standardized extract in many trials

Reference or studied range—not a personalized prescription. The product label or a clinician may specify a different dose.

Dose source ↗

More is not automatically better. A clinician or product label may specify a different amount.

Absorption / solubilityFormulation-dependent

Not usefully classified as a fat- or water-soluble vitamin; absorption depends on the salt, extract, delivery system, and meal.

How it is commonly taken

Take consistently at the same time daily.

Do not combine casually

Pregnancy, breastfeeding, fertility treatment, hormonal contraception, antipsychotics, and dopamine medicines require review.

Dose and use source ↗

Dose and use links lead to primary or official source material. Search links are discovery tools, not proof that every returned paper applies.

02 / EVIDENCE

What the research says

We keep supportive, mixed, negative, safety, and contextual findings together. The headline never replaces the underlying papers.

1research papers in this ledger

3unique primary studies represented

520unique participants represented

These are audited counts for this JIVANA collection, not search-result totals. Participants are counted once when multiple papers use the same cohort; review papers are not added again to participant totals.

Open the research timelineResearch timeline

Entries are ordered by publication year. A study period appears only when the source reports it.

2019

Mixed or qualifiedPMID 31780016

Characterized Vitex agnus-castus extracts for premenstrual syndrome

Participants receiving the two characterized extracts were more likely to meet symptom-remission definitions than placebo, but only 3 of 21 identified trials were adequately characterized and reportable. Results cannot be generalized to other chasteberry products or fertility claims.

Published: 2019n=520 participants3 primary studies represented

Study design and methods

Design: Meta-analysis of 3 randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trials meeting herbal-product reporting criteria
Population: 520 women with premenstrual syndrome
Intervention: Characterized Vitex extracts Ze 440 or BNO 1095 versus placebo
Outcome: Remission or substantial reduction in total premenstrual symptom scores

Open research record ↗

Unscreened discovery appendix—not evidence14 candidate publicationsSearch run: Aug 21, 2026

Complete for the displayed PubMed query at the search timestamp—not for all databases or every possible synonym. Candidates can be irrelevant, duplicate the same study, or report negative findings. They are never summed as evidence or participants until screened.

03 / SOURCES

Start with the source material

Official evidence overviewPubMed bounded human-evidence search Live PubMed discovery searchNational Library of Medicine

The live search is for discovery only. Search-result counts change and are not included in the audited totals above.

Recent PubMed discovery recordsDirect links to the first 12 records returned by the reproducible search. These are discovery candidates—not reviewed summaries or a count of supportive findings.

04 / EXPERT CONTEXT

Expert context—not evidence

Expert positions are dated context—not scientific evidence. They never raise the evidence status or become consensus by repetition.

No direct, source-verified endorsement is currently recorded. Research authorship or discussion alone is not treated as endorsement.