ArticleHepatobiliary surgery and nutrition2026
Combined treatment of budesonide and ursodeoxycholic acid for non-cirrhotic primary biliary cholangitis: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Article in Hepatobiliary surgery and nutrition, 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
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Primary biliary cholangitis (PBC) is a chronic immune-mediated disease that may partially exhibit a poor response to the first-line treatments, such as monotherapy (MU) with ursodeoxycholic acid (UDCA). Budesonide, a widely used and readily available medication, has shown promise in previous studies as an alternative to conventional drugs when combined with UDCA (CBU) for non-cirrhotic PBC. Therefore, this study aimed to confirm the role of CBU in patients with non-cirrhotic PBC. Methods: We systematically searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, and Embase databases for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing CBU and MU for non-cirrhotic PBC. The certainty of evidence was assessed using the grading of the recommendation assessment, development, and evaluation (GRADE) framework. Trial sequential analysis (TSA) was applied to control for the risk of random errors and to evaluate the conclusion validity. Results: Three high-quality RCTs comprising 170 patients were included. Moderate certainty of evidence revealed that CBU showed a significantly higher percentage improvement over MU in alkaline phosphatase (ALP) [mean difference (MD) =19.97, 95% confidence interval (CI): 6.59 to 33.35, P=0.003, I Conclusions: CBU might be superior to MU for non-cirrhotic PBC, possibly showing a better biochemical response and liver histology improvement with similar safety. Further large-sample studies are required in this subpopulation.
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.