ReviewEuropean cardiology2026
Safety Profile of Statins: An Umbrella Review of Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses.
Review in European cardiology, 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Statins are a cornerstone of therapy to reduce LDL cholesterol and cardiovascular diseases. However, their use may cause adverse events. This umbrella review aims to comprehensively review the safety profile of statin therapy. Methods: PubMed and Embase were searched to identify systematic reviews, scoping reviews, meta-analyses and network meta-analyses on statin safety. Extracted data included study type, data source, number of included studies, search date range, participant numbers, interventions, safety outcomes, results and funding. Risk of bias was assessed using the AMSTAR 2 instrument. Data underwent descriptive statistical analysis. Results: Seventy-two reviews were included, mostly based on clinical trials (70.8%) and observational studies (59.7%). Only 21 (29.2%) reported results for individual statins, with atorvastatin being the most frequently evaluated individual statin (95.2%). Nearly 86% of the reviews were rated as Critically Low in overall confidence. Statins were associated with an increased risk of new-onset diabetes, particularly rosuvastatin and atorvastatin, whereas pitavastatin may be protective. Liver injury/dysfunction and elevated transaminases were observed, along with a small risk of muscle-related symptoms, specifically at higher statin intensity. Rare serious events, such as necrotising myopathy, were reported. Pregnancy studies indicated an increased risk of spontaneous abortion. Conclusion: Although overall statin safety is favourable, the risks of diabetes, liver dysfunction, enzyme elevations and muscle symptoms require consideration, especially with high-intensity therapy or specific statins. Pitavastatin may be a safer option for patients at metabolic risk. Therapy should be tailored to individual patient factors. Further research is needed to clarify rare or inconsistent outcomes.
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.