ReviewFrontiers in pharmacology2024
Efficacy and safety of peroxisome proliferator-activated receptor agonists for the treatment of primary biliary cholangitis: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.
Review in Frontiers in pharmacology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Review
- Peroxisome Proliferator-Activated Receptor (PPAR) Agonists for Patients With Primary Biliary Cholangitis With Inadequate Response to Ursodeoxycholic Acid (UDCA): A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.JGH open : an open access journal of gastroenterology and hepatology · 2025Review
- Primary biliary cholangitis: a summary of pathogenesis and therapies.Annals of gastroenterologyReview
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Peroxisome proliferator-activated receptor (PPAR) agonists are recognised as a promising treatment for primary biliary cholangitis (PBC). However, the effects and safety of these agonists on PBC remain unexplored. Our study aimed to investigate the efficacy and safety of PPAR agonists in treating PBC. Methods: We searched Cochrane Library, and Web of Science, PubMed, and Embase databases from inception to 15 March 2024 for randomised controlled studies (RCTs) that enrolled individuals with PBC treated with PPAR agonists compared with placebo. The primary outcomes were biochemical response and normalization of the alkaline phosphatase (ALP) level. Results: Eight RCTs involving 869 participants in total were included. The meta-analysis revealed that compared to placebo, PPAR agonists increased the rate of biochemical response (RR: 5.53; 95% CI: 3.79, 8.06) and normalization of the ALP level (RR: 17.18; 95% CI: 5.61, 52.61). In addition, PPAR agonists can also reduce alanine aminotransferase (ALT) (MD: -12.69 U/L; 95% CI: -18.03, -7.35), aspartate aminotransferase (AST) (MD: -4.18 U/L; 95% CI: -7.28, -1.08), ALP (MD: -142.95 U/L; 95% CI: -167.29, -118.60), γ-glutamyltransferase (GGT) (MD: -63.03 U/L; 95% CI: -92.08, -33.98), and total cholesterol (TC) levels (SMD: -0.71; 95% CI: -1.38, -0.04), and there was no significant difference in overall adverse reactions (RR: 0.99; 95% CI: 0.92, 1.05), serious adverse reactions (RR: 1.10; 95% CI: 0.70, 1.72) between the two groups. Conclusion: PPAR agonists are safe and well-tolerated in patients with PBC and are effective in improving the rate of biochemical response and related biomarkers.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.