Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36017581›Full record

ArticleMedical science monitor : international medical journal of experimental and clinical research2022

Editorial: The Metabolic (Dysfunction) Associated Fatty Liver Disease (MAFLD)-Non-Alcoholic Fatty Liver Disease (NAFLD) Debate: A Forced Consensus and The Risk of a World Divide.

Nahum Méndez-Sánchez, Ming-Hua Zheng, Takumi Kawaguchi, Shiv K Sarin

Abstract readEditorial
In one paragraph

Article in Medical science monitor : international medical journal of experimental and clinical research, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Review
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Nahum Méndez-SánchezLiver Research Unit, Medica Sur Clinic & Foundation and Faculty of Medicine, National Autonomous University of Mexico, Mexico City, Mexico.
Ming-Hua ZhengMAFLD Research Center, Department of Hepatology, The First Affiliated Hospital of Wenzhou Medical University, Wenzhou, Zhejiang, China (mainland).
Takumi KawaguchiDivision of Gastroenterology, Department of Medicine, Kurume University School of Medicine, Kurume, Fukuoka, Japan.
Shiv K SarinDepartment of Hepatology, Institute of Liver and Biliary Sciences, New Delhi, India.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

During the past two years, the redefinition of non-alcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) to metabolic dysfunction-associated fatty liver disease (MAFLD) have been endorsed by international societies of hepatology, patient advocacy associations, and stakeholders. More recently, the American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases (AASLD) and the European Association for the Study of the Liver (EASL) have attempted to achieve a consensus. Three main fundamental issues raise concerns regarding the validity of the current consensus process. First, the development of the process and the selection of experts in the consensus panels remain unclear. Second, there is a concern regarding the quantity and quality of the evidence considered by the consensus panels. Third, there has been a lack of input to the consensus panel decisions from the academic and clinical community. This Editorial aims to raise an urgent note of caution regarding the consensus process used by the AASLD and EASL regarding fatty liver disease, to prevent world divide and different global definitions and guidelines from being adopted.

Indexed as

Non-alcoholic Fatty Liver DiseaseBiopsyConsensusHumans

Identifiers

PMID36017581
PMCPMC9389952

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.