Find supplements that actually work

Most supplement sites want to sell you something. SupStack just helps you figure out what's backed by real research — and what's not worth your money.

How it works

From research to results in four steps

1

Pick your goals

Sleep, focus, recovery, energy — whatever you're trying to improve.

2

See what works

Get supplements ranked by how strong the research actually is.

3

Build your stack

Save your selections and share your stack with friends or doctors.

4

Run experiments

Track your personal response with N-of-1 experiments and get a verdict.

Test what actually works for you

Research tells you what works on average. N-of-1 experiments tell you what works for you.

Completed Experiment

Creatine for Focus & Cognition

30-day trial • 5g daily • 4 check-ins

4/4 check-insDay 30
Clear Positive Effect

Focus scores improved from 5/10 to 7.5/10. Working memory tasks felt noticeably easier by week 3.

What makes SupStack different

Research, not marketing

Every supplement is rated based on actual clinical studies — not influencer posts or manufacturer claims.

Sources you can check

Every rating links back to PubMed studies. Don't take our word for it — read the research yourself.

Safety info upfront

Drug interactions, side effects, and who should avoid what — the stuff that's usually buried in fine print.

Continuously validated

Every claim is cross-checked against real studies. Scores and safety ratings get updated as new research comes out.

Latest Research

Recently discovered studies across the supplement library

View All
Published 2026

Does Nutrition Intervention Prevent and Heal Pressure Injury? A Systematic Review of Randomized Controlled Trials

Yildirim D et al. • Advances in skin & wound care (2026)

Across 18 studies including 1231 participants (aged 38 to 83 y) with stage 2 to 4 PIs, nutritional interventions demonstrated positive effects on prevention and healing.

  • Across 18 studies including 1231 participants (aged 38 to 83 y) with stage 2 to 4 PIs, nutritional interventions demonstrated positive effects on prevention and healing.
  • Formulas enriched with protein, arginine, zinc, antioxidants, and other nutrients appear promising; nonetheless, further large-scale, high-quality RCTs are needed to confirm these findings.
  • Further research warranted to confirm findings
Systematic Review99/10n=1,231
DOI
Published 2026

Efficacy and mechanisms of Xiangsha Liujunzi Decoction for gastroesophageal reflux disease: A study integrating meta-analysis, network pharmacology and molecular docking

Tian M et al. • Phytomedicine : international journal of phytotherapy and phytopharmacology (2026)

XSLJZD may improve RE symptoms as an adjunctive therapy, but the evidence is low in certainty.

  • Eight RCTs (n = 646) showed that XSLJZD significantly improved clinical outcomes compared with controls, demonstrating superior overall efficacy and reduced recurrence.
  • XSLJZD may improve RE symptoms as an adjunctive therapy, but the evidence is low in certainty.
  • The proposed anti-inflammatory and apoptotic mechanisms are computationally derived.
Meta-Analysis98/10n=646
DOI
Published 2026

Caffeine and IBD Risk: A Meta-Analysis

Wu X et al. • Journal of gastroenterology and hepatology (2026)

The relationship between caffeine intake and IBD risk varies by region, age, caffeine source, smoking, and education level.

  • The meta-analysis showed no significant association between caffeine intake and IBD (RR = 0.84, 95% CI = 0.68-1.04).
  • In Americans, caffeine increased UC risk by 68% (RR = 1.68, 95% CI = 1.17-2.42).
  • Age analysis showed caffeine increased IBD risk by 4.52 times in those ≤18 (RR = 4.52, 95% CI = 1.59-12.88) but decreased risk by 7% in those >18 (RR = 0.93, 95% CI = 0.73-1.18).
Meta-Analysis97/10n=209
DOI
Published 2026

Efficacy and safety of boron neutron capture therapy for locally recurrent head and neck cancer

Sun X et al. • Critical reviews in oncology/hematology (2026)

BNCT has shown favorable efficacy and safety in LRHNC.

  • The ORR was 70 % (95 % CI: 65 %-75 %; P = 0.8187) and the 2-year OS rate was 45 % (95 % CI: 39 %-50 %; P < 0.0001).
  • The ORR of patients with non-squamous cell carcinoma (NSCC) was higher than those with squamous cell carcinoma (SCC) (82 % vs. 72 %), while the 2-year OS rates were similar (50 % vs. 49 %).
  • The most frequent acute AEs included hyperamylasemia (75 %, 95 % CI: 70 %-80 %), alopecia (61 %, 95 % CI: 55 %-67 %), and submandibular gland inflammation (61 %, 95 % CI: 49 %-72 %).
Meta-Analysis97/10n=361
DOI

Stop guessing. Start with the research.

Find out which supplements are worth trying — and which ones you can skip.

Get Started