Table 3 End-point results of the included studies

Monotherapy

Laurin et al. [24]*

ALT (−30%), ALP (−8%) and γGT (−45%)

steatosis improved

Lindor et al. [25]

ALT in −31% vs. −29%

steatosis in −18% vs. −14%; inflammation in −0 vs. −0.1, fibrosis in 0 vs. 0

Dufour et al. [20]

ALT in −36% vs. −2%

steatosis in −13% vs. −14%, inflammation in −0.8 vs. −0.02, fibrosis in +0.3 vs. +0.4

Kiyici et al. [26]

ALT in −26% vs. −40% ALT in 76.0 vs. 55.1, γGT in 47.8vs 32.2

liver density +20% vs. +35% (in UDCA group between after and before therapy)

Hong Qian, et al. [32]

Effective ratio24/26 vs. 23/27

not mentioned

Zhu Hong-juan [27]

liver function and symptom in 25/30 vs. 15/30

not mentioned

Ratziu et al. [28]

ALT in −28% vs. −2% γGT in −51% vs. +19%

fibrosis in −11% vs. +10%^#

Leuschner et al. [29]

ALT in −41% vs. −35%

Brunt score in −14% vs. −14% NAS activity score in −21% vs. −18%

UDCA combined with other drugs

Dufour et al. [20]

ALT in −42% vs. −2% AST in −30% vs. +6%

steatosis in −1.4 vs. −0.5; inflammation in −2.2 vs. −0.8

Zhuang Xue-shan [30]

Effective rate 36/40 vs. 29/42

26/40 vs. 17/42 in steatosis (ultrasound)

Sun Yan [31]

ALT in −79 vs. −72, AST in −31 vs. −8, Effective rate 65/76 vs. 37/61

not mentioned

Lv Hong [33]

ALT in −45.9 vs. −16.1 AST in −40.1 vs. −29.5

no report in histology

Liu Zhi-ye [34]

Effective rate 86/96 vs. 38/54

no report in histology