ArticleAnnals of gastroenterology2026
Lipoprotein (a) and inflammatory bowel disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Article in Annals of gastroenterology, 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Lipid profile alterations have been reported in patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD). Our aim was to systematically investigate all relevant evidence on the association between lipoprotein (a) [Lp(a)] and IBD. Methods: We searched PubMed and Cochrane Library databases (up to 30 December 2024) for studies with evidence on Lp(a) in patients with IBD. A meta-analysis was performed to evaluate the mean differences (MD) in Lp(a) between patients with Crohn's disease (CD) or ulcerative colitis (UC), and healthy controls (HC). Results: The literature search identified 11 studies (2687 participants) investigating the lipid profile of patients with IBD; however, only 6 studies were used for the meta-analysis. Overall, 1978 participants were included in the meta-analysis, of whom 1196 were IBD patients and 782 were HC. The pooled analysis from 4 studies showed that CD patients had significantly higher Lp(a) levels compared to HC (MD 18.36 mg/dL, 95% confidence interval [CI] 14.53-22.20; P<0.001). Similarly, a pooled analysis from 4 studies showed that UC patients had higher Lp(a) levels compared to HC (MD 7.32 mg/dL, 95% CI 2.85-11.79; P=0.001). A pooled analysis of 3 studies revealed a non-significant difference in Lp(a) levels between CD and UC patients. In subgroup analyses based on disease activity, CD patients with active disease exhibited significantly higher Lp(a) levels compared to those with inactive disease. No significant difference was observed in UC patients stratified by disease activity. Conclusions: Lp(a) levels are significantly higher in both CD and UC patients compared to HC. Therefore, Lp(a) evaluation is advisable when assessing IBD patients.
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.