Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38127259›Full record

ArticleHepatology international2024

Breaking new ground: MASLD vs. MAFLD-which holds the key for risk stratification?

Mariana Michelle Ramírez-Mejía, Carlos Jiménez-Gutiérrez, Mohammed Eslam, Jacob George, Nahum Méndez-Sánchez

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Hepatology international, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 37 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
37citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
17.4field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

37 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 81 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.

Mariana Michelle Ramírez-MejíaPlan of Combined Studies in Medicine (PECEM-MD/PhD), Faculty of Medicine, National Autonomous University of Mexico, Mexico City, Mexico.
Carlos Jiménez-GutiérrezGeneral Hospital "Dr. Manuel Gea González", Mexico City, Mexico.
Mohammed EslamStorr Liver Centre, Westmead Institute for Medical Research, Westmead Hospital and University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia.
Jacob GeorgeStorr Liver Centre, Westmead Institute for Medical Research, Westmead Hospital and University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia.
Nahum Méndez-SánchezLiver Research Unit, Medica Sur Clinic & Foundation, Mexico City, Mexico. nmendez@medicasur.org.mx.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5257-8048
Hospital Médica Sur · MXThe University of Sydney · AUHospital General Dr. Manuel Gea Gonzalez · MX

Funding

Cancer Institute 2021/ATRG2028National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia APP1053206
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe classification and nomenclature of non-alcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) has been the subject of ongoing debate in the medical community. Through the introduction of metabolic dysfunction-associated fatty liver disease (MAFLD) and the later release of metabolic dysfunction-associated steatotic liver disease (MASLD), the limitations associated with NAFLD are intended to be addressed. Both terminologies incorporate the metabolic component of the disease by providing diagnostic criteria that relies on the presence of underlying metabolic risk factors. MATERIALS AND

methodsAn epidemiologic cross-sectional study of individuals who had undergone abdominal ultrasound and vibration-controlled transient elastography (VCTE) as part of a routine check was performed. We evaluated clinical, anthropometric, and biochemical variables to determine the metabolic profile of each subject.

resultsThe study included a total of 500 participants, 56.8% (n = 284) males and 43.2% (n = 216) females, with a mean age of 49 ± 10 years. 59.4% (n = 297) were diagnosed with MAFLD and MASLD, 10.2% (n = 51) were diagnosed only with MASLD and 30.4% (n = 152) were not diagnosed with either MAFLD or MASLD. The differences in prevalence were mainly based on the detection of individuals with a BMI < 25 kg/m

conclusionsAlthough MASLD has a higher capture of lean patients compared to MAFLD, patients with MAFLD and MASLD have a worse metabolic profile than those with only MASLD. Our results provide evidence that MAFLD better identifies patients likely to have a higher risk of liver fibrosis and of disease progression.

Indexed as

Metabolic DiseasesNon-alcoholic Fatty Liver DiseaseAdultCross-Sectional StudiesFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedRisk AssessmentRisk FactorsCardiovascular riskDiabetes mellitusFatty liverMAFLDMASLDMetabolic dysfunctionObesity

Identifiers

PMID38127259
OpenAlexW4390059054

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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 Socratic graph.