SynthesisFrontiers in pharmacology2026
Clinical effects of ursodeoxycholic acid in COVID-19 infection: a systematic review and dose-response 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. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Ursodeoxycholic acid and long COVID in steatotic liver disease: a nationwide cohort study.Clinical and molecular hepatology · 2026Article
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
Objectives: Previous studies have shown that ursodeoxycholic acid (UDCA) reduces COVID-19 infection by inhibiting farnesoid X receptor activity, a direct regulator of ACE2. Even though UDCA, an easily accessible medication with few side effects, could be considered for administration to prevent infection and relieve symptoms for COVID-19 infection, there are limited supporting studies with a high-level of evidence and recommendations for the exact dosage of UDCA. We conducted a systematic review and dose-response meta-analysis to evaluate the clinical effect of UDCA in COVID-19 infection. Methods: Studies were identified through a literature search: PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane from inception to March 2025. We included research related to COVID-19 infection and UDCA. Primary outcomes were COVID-19 infection rate, mortality rate, COVID-19 severe infection risk, ventilator use, hospitalization, ICU hospitalization, and recovery time between UDCA group and controls. The secondary outcome was UDCA dose-response association regarding infection risk. We analyzed for odds ratios (ORs), including infection rate, mortality rate, severe infection risk, ventilator use, hospitalization, and intensive care unit hospitalization, and for standardized mean difference (SMD), including recovery time between UDCA groups and controls. Risk of Bias in Non-randomized Studies of Interventions (ROBINS-I) was used to evaluate bias risk. Results: Of 188 articles, 15 cohort studies with 716,310 participants (control = 495,276; UDCA treatment = 221,034) were included. The level of risk of bias was seven studies at low, four at moderate, and four at serious. UDCA showed association with a lower risk of infection (OR, 0.69; 95% CI, 0.55-0.86), lower severe infection risk (OR, 0.75; 95% CI, 0.64-0.89), and ventilator use (OR, 0.75; 95% CI, 0.62-0.90) compared to controls. Conclusion: The findings support evidence for the clinical effects of UDCA for COVID-19 infection. There is a need for randomized trials to evaluate UDCA as a potential prophylactic agent against COVID-19. Systematic Review Registration: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/view/CRD420251019195, identifier #CRD420251019195.
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.