Table 1 Characteristics of the included studies in the meta-analysis
First Author | Year | Location | Diagnostic methods | Numbers of NAFLD/Control | Age, years | Sex (Males, %) | BMI, kg/m2 | ALT, U/L | Sample | Microbiota detection method | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
NAFLD Control | NAFLD | Control | NAFLD | Control | NAFLD | Control | ||||||||
Caussy [17] | 2019 | USA | Histology | 42/51 | NAFL54.0 ± 14.9NASH65.1 ± 9.8 | 45.9 ± 19.9 | 13 (31.0%) | 15 (29.4%) | NAFL31.1 ± 6.6NASH31.3 ± 6.1 | 26.2 ± 6.8 | NAFL23.2 ± 11.2NASH45.0 ± 37.4 | 18.8 ± 8.8 | Stool | Sequencing |
Chierico [18] | 2016 | Italy | Not mentioned | 53/62 | NAFL 12.04 ± 2.8NASH 12.27 ± 2.5 | Healthy 10.24 ± 2.5Obese 11.25 ± 2.7 | 32 (60.4%) | 26 (41.9%) | NAFL26.46 ± 4.43NASH27.42 ± 6.45 | Healthy 17.59 ± 1.79Obese26.15 ± 4.38 | NAFL32.3 ± 22.74NASH44.46 ± 16.73 | HealthyNAObese 41.50 ± 47.70 | Stool | Sequencing |
Jiang [19] | 2015 | China | Histology or ultrasound | 53/32 | 48.00 | 41.00 | 26 (49.1%) | 5 (15.6%) | 26.4 (21.5–33.3) | 22.5 (18.2–33.5) | 42.7 (11–145) | 21 (6–29) | Stool | Sequencing |
Li [20] | 2018 | China | Ultrasound | 30/37 | 47.53 ± 8.5 | 44.24 ± 9.2 | 15 (50%) | 11 (29.7%) | 27.19 ± 2.56 | 23.37 ± 2.21 | 27.0 ± 17.63 | 16.7 ± 8.51 | Stool | Sequencing |
Nistal [21] | 2019 | Spain | Ultrasound | 36/17 | 49.70 (31–64) | 40.12 (25–56) | 14 (38.8%) | 5 (29.4%) | 45.64 (38.9–61.1) | 46.9 (39–63) | 34.22 (15–91) | 27.12 (10–52) | Stool | Sequencing |
Özkul [22] | 2017 | Turkey | Histology | 46/38 | 48.0 ± 12.0 | 36.0 ± 10.0 | 22 (47.8%) | 12 (31.5%) | 29.0 ± 4.0 | 22.0 ± 2.0 | 50.0 ± 41.0 | 20.0 ± 11.0 | Stool | Sequencing |
Raman [23] | 2013 | Canada | Ultrasound | 30/30 | 49 (34–57) | 51 (57–56) | 13 (43.3%) | 13 (43.3%) | 33 (29–35) | 22 (21–24) | 51 (31–82) | 18 (14–23) | Stool | Sequencing |
Shen [24] | 2017 | China | Histology | 25/22 | 45.5 ± 10.1 | 50.5 ± 9.5 | 19 (76.0%) | 17 (73.7%) | 28.6 ± 3.5 | 21.6 ± 1.7 | 51.6 ± 34.5 | 17.7 ± 5.3 | Stool | Sequencing |
Silva [25] | 2018 | Canada | Histology | 39/28 | NAFL48 (33–61)NASH46.5 (29–68) | 36.5 (21–58) | 20 (51.3%) | 15 (53.6%) | NAFL27.4 (23.5–44.2)NASH32.1 (24.17–49.53) | 26.6 (19.5–35.3) | NAFL45(14–116)NASH70(22–168) | 17.5 (7–41) | Stool | Sequencing |
Sobhonslidsuk [26] | 2018 | Thailand | Histology | 16/8 | 59.8 ± 9.6 | 43.4 ± 6.8 | 3 (18.8%) | 0 (0%) | 27.7 ± 4.8 | 21.3 ± 1.2 | 59 ± 30 | 17 ± 6 | Stool | Sequencing |
Tsai [27] | 2020 | China (Taiwan) | Histology | 50/25 | 51.2 ± 15.0 | 36.7 ± 15.0 | 24 (48.0%) | 12 (48.0%) | 31.3 ± 8.9 | 24.8 ± 5.2 | 50.2 ± 43.1 | 22.5 ± 15.7 | Stool | Sequencing |
Wang [28] | 2016 | China | Ultrasound | 43/83 | 47.0 ± 12.0 | 40.5 ± 16.0 | 36 (83.4%) | 70 (84.3%) | 23.19 (22.19–24.22) | 21.77 (20.7–23.38) | 29 (20.5–39.5) | 14.5 (12–20.75) | Stool | Sequencing |
Wong [29] | 2013 | China (HongKong) | Histology | 16/22 | 51 ± 9 | 44 ± 10 | 9 (56.3%) | 9 (40.9%) | 29.1 ± 5.6 | 22.2 ± 2.7 | 80 (44–94) | 22 (17–30) | Stool | Sequencing |
Yun [30] | 2019 | Korea | Histology | 76/192 | 45.3 ± 8.2 | 42.9 ± 8.2 | 55 (72.4%) | 83 (43.2%) | 25.7 ± 2.6 | 22.2 ± 2.4 | 24.5 ± 12.9 | 20.9 ± 17.9 | Stool | Sequencing |
Zhu [7] | 2012 | USA | Histology | 22/41 | 13.6 ± 3.5 | Healthy14.4 ± 1.8Obese12.7 ± 3.2 | 12 (54.5%) | 23 (56.1%) | 34.0 ± 0.4 | Healthy20.4 ± 0.1Obese33.4 ± 0.3 | 66.9 ± 1.9 | HelathyNAObese 27.7 ± 0.6 | Stool | Sequencing |