Skip to the main content
Open WellbeingWhat the studies actually measured

Liver, kidney and digestion

Silymarinand Hepatic Fat Fraction

Both sources here measured lower hepatic Fat Fraction.

How sure anyone can be

Very low certainty, level 1 of 4

Any estimate here is very uncertain.

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.

1.83.25 odds ratio5.87

This range stays on one side of the no-difference line.

Bar the confidence interval — the range the true effect is likely to sit inNotch the number the source reportedLine where there would be no difference at all

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, 2025 · 25 studies pooled

    Very low certainty, level 1 of 4

    Efficacy of different interventions for nonalcoholic fatty liver disease: A meta-analysis of lifestyle modifications, silymarin, and medications.

    Asia Pac J Clin Nutr. 2025;34(4):516-530. doi:10.6133/apjcn.202508_34(4).0003. PMID:40738719.

    Number reported
    Not in the abstract
    Which way it went
    Lower
    Likely range
    Not in the abstract
    Source’s own words
    hepatic steatosis rate, silymarin vs comparator (no estimable measure in the abstract: '2.5 times' is printed without saying what is multiplied, and no interval or p-value is given)
    Who was studied
    Adult with NAFLD
    Compared with
    not stated for this comparison (review-wide comparators: placebo, Mediterranean hypocaloric diet, medications, lifestyle modification)
    Amount taken
    Not in the abstract
    For how long
    Not in the abstract
    Disagreement between studies
    Not in the abstract
    Kind of record
    Journal article
    How this rating was reachedstarts at High, 3 steps down: risk of bias, indirectness and imprecision
    1. Starts at High
    2. 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
    3. Indirectness brought it down to Lowthe outcome measured is a proxy for the target outcomeReported in the abstract
    4. Imprecision brought it down to Very lowthe abstract reports no confidence interval for the estimateNot in the abstract
    5. Ends at Very low3 steps down.
    Inconsistency
    No high disagreement reported between the 25 studies it pooled

    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.

    Read the abstract on PubMed

  • Systematic review, 2024

    Very low certainty, level 1 of 4

    Administration of silymarin in NAFLD/NASH: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

    Ann Hepatol. 2024;29(2):101174. doi:10.1016/j.aohep.2023.101174. PMID:38579127.

    Number reported
    3.25 odds ratio
    Which way it went
    Lower
    Likely range
    1.8 to 5.87
    Source’s own words
    odds ratio for histologically improved hepatic steatosis vs control; this is not a fat fraction and no fat-fraction estimate is reported
    Who was studied
    Adult with NAFLD
    Compared with
    control
    Amount taken
    Not in the abstract
    For how long
    Not in the abstract
    Disagreement between studies
    Not in the abstract
    Kind of record
    Journal article
    How this rating was reachedstarts at High, 3 steps down: risk of bias, indirectness and imprecision
    1. Starts at High
    2. 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
    3. Indirectness brought it down to Lowthe outcome measured is a proxy for the target outcomeReported in the abstract
    4. Imprecision brought it down to Very lowthe abstract does not state how many participants were pooledNot in the abstract
    5. Ends at Very low3 steps down.
    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.

    Read the abstract on PubMed

What is still missing from these readings

  • One give no number at all, only which way it went.
  • 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 Silymarin

All 11 things on our list for Silymarin 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

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.