Cholesterol and blood fats
Niacin (vitamin B3)and Triglycerides
Both sources here measured lower triglycerides.
How sure anyone can be
Moderate certainty, level 3 of 4Further research may change this.
The most certain of the two findings here; each record carries its own.
The numbers reported
One source’s range, drawn against its own line of no difference and scaled to its own numbers.
-0.43-0.39 mmol/L-0.34
This range stays on one side of the no-difference line.
Two sources, newest first
What we read is the published abstract, not the full paper, so a blank below may still be printed in the paper itself. A fixed rule worked this out from the source’s own fields. Nobody checked this rating by hand.
Systematic review, 2015
Moderate certainty, level 3 of 4Effect of niacin on lipids and glucose in patients with type 2 diabetes: A meta-analysis of randomized, controlled clinical trials.
Clin Nutr. 2015;34(5):838-44. doi:10.1016/j.clnu.2014.09.019. PMID:25306426.
- Number reported
- -0.39 mmol/L
- Which way it went
- Lower
- Likely range
- -0.43 to -0.34
- Source’s own words
- mmol/L triglycerides weighted mean difference vs control
- Who was studied
- Adult with type 2 diabetes
- Compared with
- control
- Amount taken
- Not in the abstract
- For how long
- Not in the abstract
- Disagreement between studies
- no heterogeneity flagged for the TG estimate in the abstract
- Kind of record
- Journal article
How this rating was reachedstarts at High, one step down: imprecision
- Starts at High
- Imprecision brought it down to Moderatethe abstract does not state how many participants were pooledNot in the abstract
- Ends at ModerateOne step down.
- Checked, nothing to step it down for
- risk of bias and indirectness
- Inconsistency
- No disagreement reported, and no count of studies behind it
Imprecision stops at the first check that applies; others may apply too.
AI review could not confirm it — an AI agent re-read this finding against the saved source and at least one check failed. The batch record names the check and quotes the sentence that caused the doubt. No person read it.
Systematic review, 2005
Low certainty, level 2 of 4Efficacy and safety of high-density lipoprotein cholesterol-increasing compounds: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.
J Am Coll Cardiol. 2005;45(2):185-97. doi:10.1016/j.jacc.2004.10.031. PMID:15653014.
- Number reported
- -20 percent change
- Which way it went
- Lower
- Likely range
- Not in the abstract
- Source’s own words
- % relative reduction in triglycerides with niacin (fibrates 36% in the same analysis)
- Who was studied
- Adult
- Compared with
- trial control arms
- Amount taken
- Not in the abstract
- For how long
- Not in the abstract
- Disagreement between studies
- random-effects model; no I2 or CI given for the lipid percentages
- Kind of record
- Journal article
How this rating was reachedstarts at High, 2 steps down: risk of bias and imprecision
- Starts at High
- Risk of bias brought it down to Moderatethe abstract reports no risk-of-bias or quality appraisal, so study limitations cannot be ruled outNot in the abstract
- Imprecision brought it down to Lowthe abstract reports no confidence interval for the estimateNot in the abstract
- Ends at Low2 steps down.
- Checked, nothing to step it down for
- indirectness
- Inconsistency
- No disagreement reported, and no count of studies behind it
Imprecision stops at the first check that applies; others may apply too.
AI-reviewed & signed — an AI agent re-read this finding against the saved source and checked that the quote, the numbers, the units and the direction match it. No person read it. The owner authorised the agent to sign the batch with the owner's key, and every build rechecks that signature against these exact bytes.
What is still missing from these readings
- One gives no likely range, so how precise that number is is unknown.
- Two do not say how many people took part.
- Amount taken — Not in the abstract.
- For how long — Not in the abstract.
Something nobody wrote down is never a zero and never a guess.
Nothing left on our list for Niacin (vitamin B3)
All four things on our list for Niacin (vitamin B3) have been read. That is rare here.
Still to read means nobody here has got to it, not that it was tried and did nothing or that no research exists. A pairing on no list is not a gap: we never set out to read it.
Read next
Niacin (vitamin B3)
Three other questions read for it
Cholesterol and blood fats
65 questions read under it
Triglycerides
15 other ingredients read against it
First six, alphabetical, and by nothing else. The rest are on Cholesterol and blood fats.
This is a library, not advice. No recommendation, no dose, no diagnosis, no ranking. We never ask about your symptoms, and nothing here is tailored to you.