Pine bark extract

View my plan →

The short answer

Standardized extracts have small heterogeneous trials for vascular and symptom outcomes.

Evidence and scope: Mixed evidence
This status does not grade the ingredient for every goal, outcome, or person.
Important limitation: Trials are inconsistent or small, so a reliable clinically important benefit is not established.
Before deciding: Key concern: Anticoagulants, immunosuppressants, diabetes medicines, surgery, and autoimmune disease 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

Venous symptoms50–200 mg/day standardized extract in 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

May be divided with meals.

Do not combine casually

Anticoagulants, immunosuppressants, diabetes medicines, surgery, and autoimmune disease 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

15unique primary studies represented

791unique 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.

2012

Does not support the tested claimPMID 22513958 · CD008294

French maritime pine bark extract for chronic disorders

The trials were small, sparse within each condition, heterogeneous in outcomes, and at risk of bias. The review could not draw definitive efficacy or safety conclusions and found insufficient evidence to support use for any chronic disorder.

Published: 2012n=791 participants15 primary studies represented

Study design and methods

Design: Cochrane systematic review of 15 randomized trials
Population: 791 children and adults across seven chronic disorders
Intervention: Standardized French maritime pine bark extract (Pycnogenol) versus placebo or other controls
Outcome: Condition-specific clinical outcomes, mortality, adverse events, and oxidative-stress biomarkers

Open research record ↗

Unscreened discovery appendix—not evidence46 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.