ReviewCureus2025
Schematic Assessment of Metabolic Signatures of Non-alcoholic Fatty Liver Disease by Bridging Endocrinology and Internal Medicine: A Precision Therapy-Based Meta-Analysis.
Review in Cureus, 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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Non-alcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) is seen as a health concern globally and is identified via complex interactions of metabolic dysfunctions. Metabolomic and lipidomic profiling has been emerged as a promising tool for non-invasive diagnosis and precision therapy. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to assess the affect of metabolic signatures associated with NAFLD progression and their utility in paving path for precision medicine. A comprehensive literature search was conducted in adherence to the guidelines of Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) 2020. Appropriate data studies were pooled to check the disease progression using a random effects model. Risk of bias and certainty of evidence were assessed using the Cochrane risk of bias tool, ROBINS-I ("Risk Of Bias In Non-randomized Studies - of Interventions"), and the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) framework respectively. Studies found distinct metabolite patterns especially in amino acids, lipids, and gut-derived metabolites that correlated with the severity of NAFLD. The meta-analysis findings revealed a pooled hazard ratio of 0.98 (95% CI: 0.83-1.15) that indicated that no significant association was found between studies for assessment of metabolic signatures and their link to disease progression. High heterogeneity was observed (I² = 82%). Risk of bias was generally low to moderate, but overall certainty of evidence was rated low to moderate due to inconsistency and imprecision. Metabolic profiling offered valuable insights and discoveries into pathophysiology of NAFLD and stratification. However, high heterogeneity found across studies limited current clinical applicability. Standardized methodologies and longitudinal validation were needed to combine metabolic signatures into precision NAFLD care.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.