Copyright
©The Author(s) 2017.
World J Gastroenterol. Jul 21, 2017; 23(27): 5004-5017
Published online Jul 21, 2017. doi: 10.3748/wjg.v23.i27.5004
Published online Jul 21, 2017. doi: 10.3748/wjg.v23.i27.5004
Ref. | Used Indicators | Results |
Loguercio et al[19], 2007 | ALT, γGT | There were no adverse events in either group. The intervention group presented a significant reduction of hepatic steatosis in the ultrasonography score (change from 2-3 to 1-2) after 6 mo and 12 mo (P < 0.01). Significant reduction of ALT and γGT after 6 mo and 12 mo only in the intervention group (P < 0.01). Treatment affected the levels of ALT and γGT Range independent of changes in BMI of the participants. We did not evaluate data from the group with HCV patients |
Hashemi et al[38], 2009 | ALT, AST | There was a significant reduction in the average of ALT levels only in the intervention group (113.54 IU/mL vs 73.14 IU/mL) (P < 0.001). The percentage of patients with normalization (ALT < 40) was 32% after 3 mo and 52% after 6 mo in the intervention group and the difference in these percentage between control and intervention group was significant (P = 0.001). There was also a significant reduction in AST averages only in the intervention group (71.42 IU/mL vs 49.66 IU/mL) (P = 0.006). The percentage of patients with normalization (AST < 40) was 46% after 3 mo and 62% after 6 mo in the intervention group and the difference in these percentages between control group and intervention was also significant (P = 0.0001) |
Massodi et al[39], 2013 | ALT, AST | There were no serious adverse events and the side effects were similar in frequency and uncommon in both groups. There was a significant reduction in the average of ALT levels only in the intervention group (84.06 IU/mL vs 68.54 IU/mL) (P < 0.001) and in the average AST levels only in the intervention group (71.94 IU/mL vs 54.70 IU/mL) (P < 0.001) |
Solhi et al[28], 2014 | ALT, AST | There was a significant difference in the mean values of ALT levels only in the intervention group (91.3 IU/mL vs 38.4 IU/mL) (P = 0.026) and in the AST levels only in the intervention group (62.8 IU/mL vs 30.5 IU/mL) (P = 0.038). |
Aller et al[34], 2015 | ALT, AST, γGT | There were no adverse events in both groups. There was a significant improvement in the fibrosis score in both groups (P < 0.05). There was a significant difference in the reduction of the average γGT levels (81.5 IU/L vs 46.2 IU/L) (P < 0.05) in the intervention group and also in the control group (80.5 IU/L vs 50.3 IU/L) (P < 0.05). There was a significant reduction only in the average of ALT levels (70.8 IU/L vs 54.7 IU/L) (P < 0.05) and AST (41.6 IU/L vs 36 IU/L) (P < 0.05) in the control group. |
Sorrentino et al[35], 2015 | ALT, AST, γGT | No adverse events were reported in both groups. Mean levels of ALT, AST and γGT were within normal limits at the baseline. There was a significant reduction only in the average values of right lobe size of the liver by the USG (17.24 cm vs -0.96 cm) (P = 0.044) |
- Citation: de Avelar CR, Pereira EM, de Farias Costa PR, de Jesus RP, de Oliveira LPM. Effect of silymarin on biochemical indicators in patients with liver disease: Systematic review with meta-analysis. World J Gastroenterol 2017; 23(27): 5004-5017
- URL: https://www.wjgnet.com/1007-9327/full/v23/i27/5004.htm
- DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3748/wjg.v23.i27.5004