SynthesisFrontiers in pharmacology2026
Efficacy of plant extracts for metabolic dysfunction-associated steatotic liver disease: a network meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Frontiers in pharmacology, 2026. 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Metabolic dysfunction-associated steatotic liver disease (MASLD) is a leading cause of chronic liver disease worldwide, affecting approximately 38% of the global population. This network meta-analysis systematically compared the effects of different plant extracts on liver biochemical and non-invasive histological outcomes in patients with MASLD. Methods: This study was performed in accordance with the PRISMA guidelines and registered with PROSPERO (CRD420251229711). We systematically searched PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science up to November 12, 2025 for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) assessing plant extracts in adults with MASLD. Primary outcomes were alanine aminotransferase (ALT), aspartate aminotransferase (AST), controlled attenuation parameter (CAP), liver stiffness measurement (LSM), and hepatic steatosis percentage. Network meta-analyses were conducted using Stata 15.1 and R 4.2.1. Results: In total, 32 RCTs were included, involving 2,053 patients and 28 types of plant extracts. For liver enzyme outcomes, a novel curcumin preparation (CP) exhibited the highest ranking probability for ALT reduction (SUCRA: 91.93%), whereas cinnamon (Cin) ranked highest for AST reduction (SUCRA: 88.48%). For non-invasive histological outcomes, purslane (Pur) showed the greatest ranking probability for reducing LSM (SUCRA: 94.16%), while fenugreek (Fen) demonstrated favorable ranking probabilities for both CAP reduction (SUCRA: 79.07%) and hepatic steatosis percentage reduction (SUCRA: 86.97%). The overall methodological quality of the included studies was generally acceptable, and funnel plot assessments revealed no substantial evidence of publication bias. Conclusion: Compared with placebo, most plant extracts do not achieve statistically significant improvements in liver biochemical or non-invasive liver-related outcomes, leaving their overall clinical efficacy uncertain. Although CP, Cin, Fen, and Pur showed favorable probability rankings for specific endpoints based on SUCRA values, these findings should not be interpreted as evidence of clinically meaningful superiority. Given the limited evidence, considerable heterogeneity, and uncertainty in comparative estimates, the current data do not support the use of plant extracts as standalone therapies for MASLD outside the context of concomitant lifestyle modification. Adequately powered, standardized RCTs are warranted to clarify their therapeutic effects. Systematic Review Registration: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/view/CRD420251229711; Identifier: CRD420251229711.
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.