SynthesisEuropean journal of medical research2025
Comparative efficacy of multiple drugs for non-alcoholic fatty liver disease: a Bayesian network meta-analysis.
Synthesis in European journal of medical research, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
Abstract
backgroundNon-alcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD), now referred to as metabolic dysfunction-associated steatotic liver disease (MASLD), is the most prevalent chronic liver disease worldwide. However, it remains unclear which drug treatment is more effective. Therefore, we conducted a network meta-analysis to comprehensively compare the efficacy of several potentially beneficial hypoglycemic drugs and vitamin E in treating patients with NAFLD.
methodsThis Bayesian network meta-analysis searched PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Library for randomized controlled trials (RCTs). We employed random-effects models to calculate mean differences (MD), relative risk (RR), and 95% confidence intervals (CI). The study outcomes included anthropometric measurements, biological markers, hepatic fat content, and liver biopsy results. The protocol for this systematic review with network meta-analysis was registered on PROSPERO (CRD42024532600).
resultsThis analysis included 26 RCTs with 2143 patients. Based on the surface under the cumulative ranking curve and the network meta-analysis matrix, glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1RA) demonstrated superior efficacy compared to other interventions, particularly in terms of weight loss, improvement in liver enzymes, resolution of non-alcoholic steatohepatitis (NASH), reduction of hepatic fat content, glycemic control, and improvement in insulin resistance. Additionally, compared to placebo, sodium-glucose cotransporter protein-2 inhibitors (SGLT-2I) showed moderate benefits in weight loss (body mass index: MD - 1.20, 95% CI - 1.83 to - 0.71; waist circumference: MD - 2.03, 95% CI - 3.32 to - 0.74) and reduction in liver enzyme levels (alanine aminotransferase: MD - 12.96, 95% CI - 19.24 to - 6.86; aspartate aminotransferase: MD - 9.53, 95% CI - 14.20 to - 5.06). Overall, thiazolidinediones (TZD) provided significant histological benefits; however, they also carried a risk of weight gain. Vitamin E was also found to improve liver enzyme levels and histological features. According to the GRADE framework assessment, most of these findings are supported by evidence of moderate certainty.
conclusionsThe present study suggests that GLP-1RA may be the optimal treatment for NAFLD patients. In addition, current evidence does not sufficiently evaluate the impact of SGLT-2I on reducing liver fat content or histological outcomes. The potential risk of weight gain associated with TZD appears to be a limitation to their use. Vitamin E may be a suitable option for nondiabetic patients with NAFLD.
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.