ArticleTherapeutic advances in gastroenterology2025
Efficacy and safety of PPAR agonists in primary biliary cholangitis: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Article in Therapeutic advances in gastroenterology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Managing patients with primary biliary cholangitis (PBC) who demonstrate an inadequate response to ursodeoxycholic acid or experience intolerable side effects remains a significant clinical challenge. Objectives: This study aims to investigate the efficacy and safety of peroxisome proliferator-activated receptor (PPAR) agonists in the treatment of PBC. Design: Meta-analysis and systematic review. Methods: A systematic search of publications in PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials was performed. Randomized controlled trials published in English that involved the treatment of PPAR agonists and reported on the levels of alkaline phosphatase (ALP), biochemical response rates, pruritus score, or severe and serious adverse events (AEs) were selected. The primary outcomes assessed were the effects of PPAR agonists on ALP levels and biochemical response rates. Secondary outcomes included the rates of severe or serious AEs and relief of pruritus. Results: Fourteen studies with 1137 patients were included. Compared to the control group, PPAR agonists significantly reduced ALP levels by a mean difference of -155.87 U/L (95% confidence interval (CI): -208.30 to -103.44; random-effects). Patients who received PPAR agonists showed a significantly higher biochemical response rate (risk ratio (RR), 4.42; 95% CI: 2.37-8.26; random-effects). Furthermore, there was no significant difference in the rate of severe (RR, 1.05; 95% CI, 0.49-2.28) or serious AEs (RR, 1.02; 95% CI, 0.65-1.60) between the PPAR agonists and placebo groups. Conclusion: PPAR agonists are effective and safe to treat patients with PBC. PROSPERO trial registration: CRD42024545743.
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.