Kaimen Rigor reviewed

Rigor-Reviewed Manuscript

Effect of dapagliflozin on metabolic dysfunction-associated steatohepatitis: multicentre, double blind, randomised, placebo controlled trial.

Name: Kaimen Rigor review — Effect of dapagliflozin on metabolic dysfunction-associated steatohepatitis: multicentre, double blind, randomised, placebo controlled trial.
Item: Effect of dapagliflozin on metabolic dysfunction-associated steatohepatitis: multicentre, double blind, randomised, placebo controlled trial.
Rating: 100
Author: Alpha1

Lin J, Huang Y, Xu B, Gu X, Huang J, Sun J, Jia L, He J, Huang C, Wei X, Chen J, Chen X, Zhou J, Wu L, Zhang P, Zhu Y, Xia H, Wen G, Liu Y, Liu S, Zeng Y, Zhou L, Jia H, He H, Xue Y, Wu F, Zhang H

Paper source

Read full text (PMC)

Embed this Rigor badge

Kaimen Rigor review — 3★ (Adequate), 0 critical, 2 high issues for “Effect of dapagliflozin on metabolic dysfunction-associated steatohepatitis: multicentre, double blind, randomised, placebo controlled trial.”

Links back to this Kaimen Rigor review.

Alpha1 Editorial

This rigor review was examined and confirmed by Alpha1 Editorial · August 15, 2026

Read alongside

Effect of dapagliflozin on metabolic dysfunction-associated steatohepatitis: multicentre, double blind, randomised, placebo controlled trial.

Lin J, Huang Y, Xu B, Gu X, Huang J, Sun J, Jia L, He J, Huang C, Wei X, Chen J, Chen X, Zhou J, Wu L, Zhang P, Zhu Y, Xia H, Wen G, Liu Y, Liu S, Zeng Y, Zhou L, Jia H, He H, Xue Y, Wu F, Zhang H

Read full text (PMC)

DOI

10.1136/bmj-2024-083735

Share this Kaimen Rigor review

Post on X Share on LinkedIn Share via Email

Embed this Rigor badge

<a href="https://alpha1science.com/verify/046a4c9c-c453-454b-ba79-22b146332527" target="_blank" rel="noopener">
  <img src="https://alpha1science.com/verify/046a4c9c-c453-454b-ba79-22b146332527/badge" alt="Kaimen Rigor review — 3★ (Adequate), 0 critical, 2 high issues for “Effect of dapagliflozin on metabolic dysfunction-associated steatohepatitis: multicentre, double blind, randomised, placebo controlled trial.”" width="440" height="104" style="max-width:100%;height:auto" />
</a>

Every embed links back to this Kaimen Rigor review.

Record fingerprint

f889cb3b82b970a9d1147b1a746127f5ec44d2b0c6c5fff11a0b9feb9f038150

Verify via API

Issued Aug 15, 2026Engine 7.39.0

Alpha1 assesses methodological rigor, not the importance of the findings. See how we calibrate →

Alpha¹ by Kaimen

Fetching the latest research

Kaimen Rigor reviewed

Rigor-Reviewed Manuscript

Effect of dapagliflozin on metabolic dysfunction-associated steatohepatitis: multicentre, double blind, randomised, placebo controlled trial.

Lin J, Huang Y, Xu B, Gu X, Huang J, Sun J, Jia L, He J, Huang C, Wei X, Chen J, Chen X, Zhou J, Wu L, Zhang P, Zhu Y, Xia H, Wen G, Liu Y, Liu S, Zeng Y, Zhou L, Jia H, He H, Xue Y, Wu F, Zhang H

Paper source

Effect of dapagliflozin on metabolic dysfunction-associated steatohepatitis: multicentre, double blind, randomised, placebo controlled trial.

Read full text (PMC)

Embed this Rigor badge

Links back to this Kaimen Rigor review.

Alpha1 Editorial

This rigor review was examined and confirmed by Alpha1 Editorial · August 15, 2026

Kaimen Rigor review

Kaimen Rigor reviewed

3 / 5

Adequate — real issues to address

Interventional Study

Critical

High-priority

How this rating was calculated▸

Started at 5★ — deductions

IntegrityIntegrity concern ×2−1★
ClaimsEfficacy rests on an unvalidated surrogate endpoint−0.5★
ClaimsTreatment effect not shown to be clinically meaningful−0.5★

Model-reported confidence: highReviewer agreement: highEngine: 7.39.0Source: full text

Not verified in this report

The numeric-impossibility checks (GRIM/GRIMMER/DEBIT/SPRITE) did not run: 49 reported means were read, and their group size is not stated where the values are printed. These checks need the count the mean was averaged over, so none was performed.

Biggest issues

01Efficacy rests on an unvalidated surrogate endpoint
highOverreachreviewer-assessedFull detail
The primary endpoint is a histological surrogate (NAS-based MASH improvement) rather than a hard clinical outcome. Although the paper cites FDA guidance that such endpoints are 'reasonably likely to predict long term clinical benefit', it does not provide validated evidence linking the specific surrogate (NAS change) to clinical outcomes such as cirrhosis or mortality. Target engagement at the tested dose is not demonstrated (no PK/PD data).
“The primary endpoint was MASH improvement (defined as a decrease of at least 2 points in non-alcoholic fatty liver disease activity score (NAS) or a NAS of ≤3 points) without worsening of liver fibrosis (defined as without increase of fibrosis stage) at 48…”
Find in source
02Treatment effect not shown to be clinically meaningful
highOverreachreviewer-assessedFull detail
The primary effect is reported as a risk ratio of 1.73 (53% vs 30%) for MASH improvement, but the absolute difference is 23%. The clinical meaningfulness is not anchored to a minimal clinically important difference or a hard outcome. The effect on NAS is a mean difference of -1.39, but the clinical significance of this change is not established.
“MASH improvement without worsening of fibrosis was reported in 53% (41/78) of participants in the dapagliflozin group and 30% (23/76) in the placebo group (risk ratio 1.73 (95% confidence interval (CI) 1.16 to 2.58); P=0.006).”
Find in source

Findings by category

101ArithmeticNumerical inconsistencies 302OverreachOverstated conclusions 03AuthenticityNone found 04DisclosureNone found 05AvailabilityNone found 06Copyedit6 minor suggestions

This Kaimen Rigor review uses Kaimen Rigor reviewers trained on a curated corpus of high-fidelity and retracted papers, with expert supervision and curation. It can still make mistakes; verify each finding against the source before relying on it.

This is a well-conducted and well-reported multicentre RCT of dapagliflozin in MASH. The trial design is rigorous, statistical methods are appropriate, and reporting is transparent with only minor gaps (no explicit CONSORT mention, a possible group-label swap in one sentence, and a minor typo).

Both reviewers classified the study as interventional, which is adopted. The evaluation covers all eight dimensions; several sub-criteria were marked not applicable (e.g., cell line authentication, housing conditions) as this is a human clinical trial. The reviewers agreed on all dimensions, so no divergence to resolve.

Numerical inconsistencies

1 finding · worst low

Values that contradict each other or are impossible for the stated sample: recomputed p-values and test statistics, GRIM/GRIMMER checks on summary numbers, percentages against their own counts, totals against their parts, and estimates against their own confidence intervals.

Internal contradictions in the reported numbersAssessed

Recomputed 7 tests: 7 consistent, 0 inconsistent; 3 recomputed directly from the reported test statistics, 4 via agent-written checks.

Overstated conclusions

3 findings · worst high

Conclusions that reach past what the paper's own results support — including a significance claim that no longer holds when the statistic is recomputed, and efficacy resting on an unvalidated surrogate endpoint.

Efficacy rests on an unvalidated surrogate endpointAssessed
Treatment effect not shown to be clinically meaningfulAssessed
Conclusions only partially backed by the presented evidenceAssessed

5 major claims checked against the paper's own evidence: 1 only partially supported (evidence backs part of the claim; gaps or caveats remain); the rest adequately supported.

Premise concern: surrogate not validated for clinical benefit; effect size not shown to be clinically meaningful.

Data authenticity concerns

None found

An adversarial read for patterns associated with data that may not be genuine: results that look too clean, implausibly large effects, duplicated data or images, and methods that do not match the results reported.

Checked — nothing surfaced.

Reporting gaps

None found

Required detail the manuscript never states — study design, biological variables, ethics approval and consent, key resources, statistical reporting, data and code availability, and overall transparency.

Checked — nothing surfaced.

Eight Dimensions8 pass

The paper cites prior research on SGLT2 inhibitors and MASH, acknowledges inconsistent findings from two small trials, and states that no trial has been conducted in biopsy-diagnosed MASH. The rationale linking SGLT2 inhibition to MASH pathophysiology is logical and the hypothesis follows directly. Limitations of prior studies (small sample sizes, possible absence of key histological features) are explicitly noted.

Sub-criteria

prior work citedADEQUATE

premise rationaleADEQUATE

limitations addressedADEQUATE

Per reviewer (2) — the votes behind the verdict

PASSReviewer 1· 90% conf

The introduction establishes a clear scientific rationale for testing dapagliflozin in MASH, citing prior work and identifying the evidence gap.

Evidence

“Two small clinical trials have reported inconsistent findings of SGLT2 inhibitors (ipragliflozin and tofogliflozin) on liver histological features among people with diabetes and MASLD, but no trial has been conducted among participants with biopsy diagnosed MASH.”

Introduction ¶3Find in source

“Therefore, high quality evidence is required to develop clinical guidelines for SGLT2 inhibitors in MASH treatment.”

Introduction ¶3Find in source

“These studies did not provide adequate information needed to formulate evidence based clinical guidance for MASH management because of the limited sample sizes and the possible absence of ballooning, lobular inflammation or fibrosis in the MASLD population.”

DiscussionFind in source

PASSReviewer 2· 90% conf

The introduction establishes the clinical need and prior evidence, and the rationale for testing dapagliflozin is clearly linked to the study objectives.

Evidence

Introduction ¶3Find in source

“Therefore, high quality evidence is required to develop clinical guidelines for SGLT2 inhibitors in MASH treatment.”

Introduction ¶3Find in source

paraphrase[Introduction, paragraph 3]

“The study addresses the limitation of prior trials that did not include biopsy-diagnosed MASH by enrolling only participants with biopsy-confirmed MASH.”

Randomisation was computer-generated and stratified by diabetes status; allocation concealment via coded containers; participants, investigators, site personnel, and pathologists were masked. A sample size calculation with assumptions is provided. Inclusion/exclusion criteria are described, and the analysis population (ITT) and missing-data handling (non-responder imputation) are defined. The trial is a single pivotal trial, so independent replication is not applicable.

Sub-criteria

controlsN/A

power analysisADEQUATE

blinding levelsADEQUATE

outlier handlingADEQUATE

randomization unitADEQUATE

inclusion exclusionADEQUATE

randomization methodADEQUATE

replicate distinctionN/A

independent replicationN/A

Per reviewer (2) — the votes behind the verdict

PASSReviewer 1· 95% conf

The trial design is rigorous: central randomisation, double-blinding, pre-specified endpoints, and a power calculation are all reported.

Evidence

“The randomisation schedules were generated using a computer program centrally and stratified by the presence of type 2 diabetes.”

MethodsFind in source

“Participants, investigators, site personnel, and pathologists were masked to treatment assignments.”

MethodsFind in source

Statistical analysisFind in source

PASSReviewer 2· 95% conf

The trial design is rigorous: central computer-generated randomization, double-blinding, a priori power calculation, pre-specified inclusion/exclusion criteria, and a clear analysis population.

Evidence

“The randomisation schedules were generated using a computer program centrally and stratified by the presence of type 2 diabetes.”

MethodsFind in source

“Participants, investigators, site personnel, and pathologists were masked to treatment assignments.”

MethodsFind in source

“We estimated that a sample size of 148 participants (74 per group) would provide the trial with greater than 90% power to detect a difference of 27% between dapagliflozin and placebo for the primary endpoint at a two sided significance level of 0.05, assuming that 20% of the participants in the placebo group would reach the primary endpoint and 47% of the participants in the dapagliflozin group would meet the primary endpoint, as well as an anticipated dropout rate of 20%.”

Statistical analysisFind in source

Sex is reported for each group (64/76 male in placebo, 67/78 in dapagliflozin). Age, BMI, and health status (diabetes, dyslipidaemia, hypertension) are reported in Table 1. Since both sexes are enrolled, sex_justified is not applicable. Species/strain and housing are not applicable for a human trial.

Sub-criteria

demographicsADEQUATE

sex reportedADEQUATE

sex justifiedN/A

age weight healthADEQUATE

housing conditionsN/A

species strain sourceN/A

Per reviewer (2) — the votes behind the verdict

PASSReviewer 1· 90% conf

Demographic and clinical characteristics are well reported, including sex, age, BMI, and comorbidities.

Evidence

paraphrase[Table 1]

“Male 64 (84%) | 67 (86%)”

“The mean age of the participants was 35.1 (standard deviation (SD) 10.2) years, mean body mass index was 29.2 (SD 4.3)”

ResultsFind in source

“Of them, 85% (131/154) were male, 85% (131/154) had dyslipidaemia, and 45% (69/154) had type 2 diabetes.”

ResultsFind in source

PASSReviewer 2· 90% conf

Demographic and clinical characteristics are well reported, including sex, age, BMI, and comorbidities; sex is reported for both groups.

Evidence

paraphrase[Table 1]

“Male 64 (84%) | 67 (86%) | Female 12 (16%) | 11 (14%)”

“The mean age of the participants was 35.1 (standard deviation (SD) 10.2) years, mean body mass index was 29.2 (SD 4.3), and mean NAS was 6.0 (SD 1.1).”

ResultsFind in source

The paper states that the protocol was approved by the review board at each participating centre, and participants provided written informed consent. It also states compliance with the Declaration of Helsinki and ICH-GCP. This satisfies the requirements for human research.

Sub-criteria

iacuc statementN/A

informed consentADEQUATE

irb ethics statementADEQUATE

regulatory complianceADEQUATE

Per reviewer (2) — the votes behind the verdict

PASSReviewer 1· 90% conf

Ethics approval and informed consent are clearly documented.

Evidence

“The DEAN trial protocol was approved by the review board at each participating centre.”

MethodsFind in source

“Participants provided written informed consent.”

MethodsFind in source

“The trial was conducted in accordance with the principles of the Declaration of Helsinki, the International Council for Harmonization, Good Clinical Practice guidelines, and all relevant regulations.”

MethodsFind in source

PASSReviewer 2· 95% conf

Ethics approval from each centre's ethics committee and written informed consent are reported; compliance with Declaration of Helsinki and ICH-GCP is stated.

Evidence

“The DEAN trial protocol was approved by the review board at each participating centre.”

MethodsFind in source

“Participants provided written informed consent.”

MethodsFind in source

Dapagliflozin is identified as AstraZeneca product, 10 mg, with dose and regimen. Placebo is described as matching. Statistical software (SAS 9.4) is identified. No other biological/chemical resources are used, so other sub-criteria are not applicable.

Sub-criteria

mycoplasma testingN/A

reagents identifiedADEQUATE

organisms identifiedN/A

antibodies identifiedN/A

cell line authenticationN/A

software tools identifiedADEQUATE

Per reviewer (2) — the votes behind the verdict

PASSReviewer 1· 85% conf

The investigational product (dapagliflozin) is identified with manufacturer and dose; statistical software is named.

Evidence

“Participants were randomly assigned to receive 10 mg dapagliflozin (AstraZeneca; IN, USA) or matching placebo once daily in a 1:1 ratio.”

MethodsFind in source

“Statistical analyses were conducted using SAS software, version 9.4 (SAS Institute).”

Statistical analysisFind in source

PASSReviewer 2· 90% conf

The investigational product (dapagliflozin) is identified with manufacturer and dose; statistical software is identified.

Evidence

“Participants were randomly assigned to receive 10 mg dapagliflozin (AstraZeneca; IN, USA) or matching placebo once daily in a 1:1 ratio.”

MethodsFind in source

“Statistical analyses were conducted using SAS software, version 9.4 (SAS Institute).”

Statistical analysisFind in source

The primary analysis uses Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel with stratification, and continuous endpoints use mixed models. Exact p-values are reported (e.g., P=0.006). Effect sizes with 95% CIs are provided throughout. Software is identified. Data presentation includes per-group n and CIs. Mathematical plausibility checks: the reported percentages and counts are consistent (e.g., 53% of 78 = 41.34, reported 41/78; 30% of 76 = 22.8, reported 23/76, which is plausible rounding). No arithmetic errors detected.

Sub-criteria

tests namedADEQUATE

exact p valuesADEQUATE

effect sizes ciADEQUATE

data presentationADEQUATE

software identifiedADEQUATE

assumptions verifiedADEQUATE

mathematical plausibilityPASS

Per reviewer (2) — the votes behind the verdict

PASSReviewer 1· 90% conf

Statistical methods are appropriate and well described; effect sizes with CIs are reported; p-values are exact.

Evidence

“We used the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel method, controlling for the randomisation stratification factor (baseline diabetes status), for analysis of the primary and secondary endpoints.”

Statistical analysisFind in source

“risk ratio 1.73 (95% confidence interval (CI) 1.16 to 2.58); P=0.006”

ResultsFind in source

“Mean difference of NAS was −1.39 (95% CI −1.99 to −0.79); P<0.001”

ResultsFind in source

PASSReviewer 2· 90% conf

Statistical methods are appropriate and well-described; effect sizes with CIs are reported; p-values are exact; software is identified.

Evidence

“We used the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel method, controlling for the randomisation stratification factor (baseline diabetes status), for analysis of the primary and secondary endpoints.”

Statistical analysisFind in source

“MASH improvement without worsening of fibrosis was reported in 53% (41/78) of participants in the dapagliflozin group and 30% (23/76) in the placebo group (risk ratio 1.73 (95% confidence interval (CI) 1.16 to 2.58); P=0.006).”

ResultsFind in source

paraphrase[Results, Primary and secondary endpoints]

“The mean difference of NAS was −1.39 (95% CI −1.99 to −0.79); P<0.001).”

The data availability statement provides a concrete route: data are available in a GitHub repository (https://github.com/Yurence/DEAN_trial.git). The code used for analysis is also in supplemental files. Since the data are not individual patient-level but likely aggregate, repository deposit is adequate. No accession numbers are applicable.

Sub-criteria

code sharingADEQUATE

accession numbersN/A

repository depositADEQUATE

data availability statementADEQUATE

Per reviewer (2) — the votes behind the verdict

PASSReviewer 1· 90% conf

Data and code availability are clearly stated with a public repository link.

Evidence

“The data underlying the findings of this paper are available in: https://github.com/Yurence/DEAN_trial.git .”

Data availabilityFind in source

“The codes used to analyse the data can be found in the supplemental files.”

Data availabilityFind in source

PASSReviewer 2· 90% conf

Data availability statement provides a concrete route (GitHub repository) and code is shared; managed access is not needed as data are available in a public repo.

Evidence

“The data underlying the findings of this paper are available in: https://github.com/Yurence/DEAN_trial.git .”

Data availabilityFind in source

“The codes used to analyse the data can be found in the supplemental files.”

Data availabilityFind in source

Trial registration number is provided (NCT03723252). Methods are comprehensive. Limitations are explicitly discussed (Chinese population, male predominance, primary endpoint choice). Conclusions are proportional to the results. Funding and competing interests are disclosed. Reporting guideline (CONSORT) is not explicitly mentioned but the paper follows it; this is a minor gap.

Sub-criteria

funding coiADEQUATE

trial registrationADEQUATE

reporting guidelineINADEQUATE

methods completenessADEQUATE

all outcomes reportedADEQUATE

limitations discussedADEQUATE

conclusions proportionalADEQUATE

Per reviewer (2) — the votes behind the verdict

PASSReviewer 1· 90% conf

The trial is registered, methods are detailed, limitations are discussed, and funding/COI are disclosed.

Evidence

“Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03723252 .”

AbstractFind in source

“Secondly, the current trial was conducted in a Chinese population, which limits the broader generalisability of the conclusion.”

LimitationsFind in source

paraphrase[Funding and Competing interests sections]

“Funding: This study was supported by grants from Noncommunicable Chronic Diseases-National Science and Technology Major Project (No. 2023ZD0508300); ... Competing interests: All authors have completed the ICMJE uniform disclosure form ...”

PASSReviewer 2· 95% conf

The trial is registered, methods are detailed, limitations are discussed, conclusions are proportional, and funding/COI are disclosed.

Evidence

“Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03723252 .”

AbstractFind in source

“Secondly, the current trial was conducted in a Chinese population, which limits the broader generalisability of the conclusion.”

LimitationsFind in source

paraphrase[Funding and Competing interests]

Registered (1 ID: ClinicalTrials.gov). No reporting guideline cited.

Broken references and links

None found

References checked against Crossref, OpenAlex and Retraction Watch for retractions and resolvability, plus declared data and code links probed for whether they resolve to content matching the paper.

Checked — nothing surfaced.

Checked 36 references by DOI: 35 verified — 1 no DOI (shown, not verified).

1 data/code link checked; 1 live.

Copyediting

6 minor

Wording, consistency and formatting errors that need correcting before submission.

No major wording or formatting errors. 6 minor suggestions below.

6 copyedit issues flagged: mostly typo, consistency, clarity.

Kaimen Rigor Action ItemsFinal pass before journal submission

The published paper is robust and methodologically sound. An informed reader should weigh the minor reporting issues (missing CONSORT reference, possible group-label swap in one sentence) as low-severity; none warrant an erratum or independent re-analysis, but the authors should consider issuing a correction for the group-label swap if confirmed.

1.
HIGHreporting
Correct the possible group-label swap in the Results sentence: 'worsening of fibrosis occurred in 5% (4/76) in the dapagliflozin group, and 22% (17/78) in the placebo group' — the dapagliflozin group has 78 participants and placebo has 76, so the labels may be reversed.
This internal contradiction could mislead readers about the direction of the effect and should be verified and corrected.
2.
HIGHreporting
Explicitly state adherence to CONSORT reporting guidelines in the Methods or a dedicated section.
Both reviewers noted this omission; referencing CONSORT strengthens transparency and is expected for a clinical trial.
3.
MEDIUMcopyedit
Fix the extra closing parenthesis in the Abstract Results: 'Mean difference of NAS was −1.39 (95% CI −1.99 to −0.79); P<0.001).' should read 'Mean difference of NAS was −1.39 (95% CI −1.99 to −0.79); P<0.001.'
Typographical error that could cause confusion.
4.
MEDIUMreporting
Clarify the fibrosis stage percentages in the Results text: 33% (F1) + 45% (F2) + 19% (F3) = 97%, not 100%. Add a note about F0 and F4 stages or explain rounding.
The copyedit and integrity checks flagged this inconsistency; readers may question the completeness of the data.
5.
MEDIUMreporting
Add a statement about the availability of the full protocol and statistical analysis plan (SAP) in a public repository (e.g., ClinicalTrials.gov) to enhance transparency.
Both reviewers suggested this; it improves reproducibility and trust.
6.
MEDIUMreporting
In the Data Availability Statement, clarify the license and any access conditions for the GitHub repository.
Ensures that readers know the terms under which data and code can be reused.
7.
MEDIUMreporting
Add a note in the Methods about how missing data for secondary endpoints were handled beyond the primary non-responder imputation.
Both reviewers noted this gap; it improves methodological transparency.
8.
MEDIUMreporting
In the Discussion, explicitly acknowledge that the primary endpoint was changed from the originally registered endpoint, and discuss the potential impact on interpretation.
Both reviewers flagged this as a transparency issue; readers should be aware of any changes to the primary outcome.
9.
LOWreporting
Consider reporting the number of participants who were screened and excluded at each stage in the CONSORT flow diagram to improve transparency.
Enhances the completeness of the trial reporting.
10.
LOWreporting
In the safety section, provide more detailed tabulation of adverse events by severity and relatedness to treatment.
Improves the completeness of safety reporting.
11.
LOWstatistics
Consider adding a sensitivity analysis using a different imputation method (e.g., multiple imputation with chained equations) to test robustness.
Strengthens the robustness of the primary analysis.
12.
LOWreporting
Add a statement about the use of a data monitoring committee and any interim analyses, if applicable.
Provides additional context about trial oversight.

Full text (43,570 chars)Analyzed: Aug 15, 2026

Start the discussion on JRNLClub

Community discussion on jrnlclub.com

Read alongside

Effect of dapagliflozin on metabolic dysfunction-associated steatohepatitis: multicentre, double blind, randomised, placebo controlled trial.

Lin J, Huang Y, Xu B, Gu X, Huang J, Sun J, Jia L, He J, Huang C, Wei X, Chen J, Chen X, Zhou J, Wu L, Zhang P, Zhu Y, Xia H, Wen G, Liu Y, Liu S, Zeng Y, Zhou L, Jia H, He H, Xue Y, Wu F, Zhang H

Read full text (PMC)

DOI

10.1136/bmj-2024-083735

Share this Kaimen Rigor review

Post on X Share on LinkedIn Share via Email

Embed this Rigor badge

<a href="https://alpha1science.com/verify/046a4c9c-c453-454b-ba79-22b146332527" target="_blank" rel="noopener">
  <img src="https://alpha1science.com/verify/046a4c9c-c453-454b-ba79-22b146332527/badge" alt="Kaimen Rigor review — 3★ (Adequate), 0 critical, 2 high issues for “Effect of dapagliflozin on metabolic dysfunction-associated steatohepatitis: multicentre, double blind, randomised, placebo controlled trial.”" width="440" height="104" style="max-width:100%;height:auto" />
</a>

Every embed links back to this Kaimen Rigor review.

Record fingerprint

f889cb3b82b970a9d1147b1a746127f5ec44d2b0c6c5fff11a0b9feb9f038150

Verify via API

Issued Aug 15, 2026Engine 7.39.0

Alpha1 assesses methodological rigor, not the importance of the findings. See how we calibrate →

Kaimen Rigor review

Kaimen Rigor reviewed

3 / 5

Adequate — real issues to address

Interventional Study

Critical

High-priority

How this rating was calculated▸

Started at 5★ — deductions

IntegrityIntegrity concern ×2−1★
ClaimsEfficacy rests on an unvalidated surrogate endpoint−0.5★
ClaimsTreatment effect not shown to be clinically meaningful−0.5★

Model-reported confidence: highReviewer agreement: highEngine: 7.39.0Source: full text

Not verified in this report

The numeric-impossibility checks (GRIM/GRIMMER/DEBIT/SPRITE) did not run: 49 reported means were read, and their group size is not stated where the values are printed. These checks need the count the mean was averaged over, so none was performed.

Biggest issues

01Efficacy rests on an unvalidated surrogate endpoint
highOverreachreviewer-assessedFull detail
The primary endpoint is a histological surrogate (NAS-based MASH improvement) rather than a hard clinical outcome. Although the paper cites FDA guidance that such endpoints are 'reasonably likely to predict long term clinical benefit', it does not provide validated evidence linking the specific surrogate (NAS change) to clinical outcomes such as cirrhosis or mortality. Target engagement at the tested dose is not demonstrated (no PK/PD data).
“The primary endpoint was MASH improvement (defined as a decrease of at least 2 points in non-alcoholic fatty liver disease activity score (NAS) or a NAS of ≤3 points) without worsening of liver fibrosis (defined as without increase of fibrosis stage) at 48…”
Find in source
02Treatment effect not shown to be clinically meaningful
highOverreachreviewer-assessedFull detail
The primary effect is reported as a risk ratio of 1.73 (53% vs 30%) for MASH improvement, but the absolute difference is 23%. The clinical meaningfulness is not anchored to a minimal clinically important difference or a hard outcome. The effect on NAS is a mean difference of -1.39, but the clinical significance of this change is not established.
“MASH improvement without worsening of fibrosis was reported in 53% (41/78) of participants in the dapagliflozin group and 30% (23/76) in the placebo group (risk ratio 1.73 (95% confidence interval (CI) 1.16 to 2.58); P=0.006).”
Find in source

Findings by category

101ArithmeticNumerical inconsistencies 302OverreachOverstated conclusions 03AuthenticityNone found 04DisclosureNone found 05AvailabilityNone found 06Copyedit6 minor suggestions

Numerical inconsistencies

1 finding · worst low

Internal contradictions in the reported numbersAssessed

Recomputed 7 tests: 7 consistent, 0 inconsistent; 3 recomputed directly from the reported test statistics, 4 via agent-written checks.

Overstated conclusions

3 findings · worst high

Efficacy rests on an unvalidated surrogate endpointAssessed
Treatment effect not shown to be clinically meaningfulAssessed
Conclusions only partially backed by the presented evidenceAssessed

5 major claims checked against the paper's own evidence: 1 only partially supported (evidence backs part of the claim; gaps or caveats remain); the rest adequately supported.

Premise concern: surrogate not validated for clinical benefit; effect size not shown to be clinically meaningful.

Data authenticity concerns

None found

Checked — nothing surfaced.

Reporting gaps

None found

Checked — nothing surfaced.

Eight Dimensions8 pass

Sub-criteria

prior work citedADEQUATE

premise rationaleADEQUATE

limitations addressedADEQUATE

Per reviewer (2) — the votes behind the verdict

PASSReviewer 1· 90% conf

The introduction establishes a clear scientific rationale for testing dapagliflozin in MASH, citing prior work and identifying the evidence gap.

Evidence

Introduction ¶3Find in source

“Therefore, high quality evidence is required to develop clinical guidelines for SGLT2 inhibitors in MASH treatment.”

Introduction ¶3Find in source

DiscussionFind in source

PASSReviewer 2· 90% conf

The introduction establishes the clinical need and prior evidence, and the rationale for testing dapagliflozin is clearly linked to the study objectives.

Evidence

Introduction ¶3Find in source

“Therefore, high quality evidence is required to develop clinical guidelines for SGLT2 inhibitors in MASH treatment.”

Introduction ¶3Find in source

paraphrase[Introduction, paragraph 3]

“The study addresses the limitation of prior trials that did not include biopsy-diagnosed MASH by enrolling only participants with biopsy-confirmed MASH.”

Sub-criteria

controlsN/A

power analysisADEQUATE

blinding levelsADEQUATE

outlier handlingADEQUATE

randomization unitADEQUATE

inclusion exclusionADEQUATE

randomization methodADEQUATE

replicate distinctionN/A

independent replicationN/A

Per reviewer (2) — the votes behind the verdict

PASSReviewer 1· 95% conf

The trial design is rigorous: central randomisation, double-blinding, pre-specified endpoints, and a power calculation are all reported.

Evidence

“The randomisation schedules were generated using a computer program centrally and stratified by the presence of type 2 diabetes.”

MethodsFind in source

“Participants, investigators, site personnel, and pathologists were masked to treatment assignments.”

MethodsFind in source

Statistical analysisFind in source

PASSReviewer 2· 95% conf

The trial design is rigorous: central computer-generated randomization, double-blinding, a priori power calculation, pre-specified inclusion/exclusion criteria, and a clear analysis population.

Evidence

“The randomisation schedules were generated using a computer program centrally and stratified by the presence of type 2 diabetes.”

MethodsFind in source

“Participants, investigators, site personnel, and pathologists were masked to treatment assignments.”

MethodsFind in source

Statistical analysisFind in source

Sub-criteria

demographicsADEQUATE

sex reportedADEQUATE

sex justifiedN/A

age weight healthADEQUATE

housing conditionsN/A

species strain sourceN/A

Per reviewer (2) — the votes behind the verdict

PASSReviewer 1· 90% conf

Demographic and clinical characteristics are well reported, including sex, age, BMI, and comorbidities.

Evidence

paraphrase[Table 1]

“Male 64 (84%) | 67 (86%)”

“The mean age of the participants was 35.1 (standard deviation (SD) 10.2) years, mean body mass index was 29.2 (SD 4.3)”

ResultsFind in source

“Of them, 85% (131/154) were male, 85% (131/154) had dyslipidaemia, and 45% (69/154) had type 2 diabetes.”

ResultsFind in source

PASSReviewer 2· 90% conf

Demographic and clinical characteristics are well reported, including sex, age, BMI, and comorbidities; sex is reported for both groups.

Evidence

paraphrase[Table 1]

“Male 64 (84%) | 67 (86%) | Female 12 (16%) | 11 (14%)”

“The mean age of the participants was 35.1 (standard deviation (SD) 10.2) years, mean body mass index was 29.2 (SD 4.3), and mean NAS was 6.0 (SD 1.1).”

ResultsFind in source

Sub-criteria

iacuc statementN/A

informed consentADEQUATE

irb ethics statementADEQUATE

regulatory complianceADEQUATE

Per reviewer (2) — the votes behind the verdict

PASSReviewer 1· 90% conf

Ethics approval and informed consent are clearly documented.

Evidence

“The DEAN trial protocol was approved by the review board at each participating centre.”

MethodsFind in source

“Participants provided written informed consent.”

MethodsFind in source

PASSReviewer 2· 95% conf

Ethics approval from each centre's ethics committee and written informed consent are reported; compliance with Declaration of Helsinki and ICH-GCP is stated.

Evidence

“The DEAN trial protocol was approved by the review board at each participating centre.”

MethodsFind in source

“Participants provided written informed consent.”

MethodsFind in source

Sub-criteria

mycoplasma testingN/A

reagents identifiedADEQUATE

organisms identifiedN/A

antibodies identifiedN/A

cell line authenticationN/A

software tools identifiedADEQUATE

Per reviewer (2) — the votes behind the verdict

PASSReviewer 1· 85% conf

The investigational product (dapagliflozin) is identified with manufacturer and dose; statistical software is named.

Evidence

“Participants were randomly assigned to receive 10 mg dapagliflozin (AstraZeneca; IN, USA) or matching placebo once daily in a 1:1 ratio.”

MethodsFind in source

“Statistical analyses were conducted using SAS software, version 9.4 (SAS Institute).”

Statistical analysisFind in source

PASSReviewer 2· 90% conf

The investigational product (dapagliflozin) is identified with manufacturer and dose; statistical software is identified.

Evidence

“Participants were randomly assigned to receive 10 mg dapagliflozin (AstraZeneca; IN, USA) or matching placebo once daily in a 1:1 ratio.”

MethodsFind in source

“Statistical analyses were conducted using SAS software, version 9.4 (SAS Institute).”

Statistical analysisFind in source

Sub-criteria

tests namedADEQUATE

exact p valuesADEQUATE

effect sizes ciADEQUATE

data presentationADEQUATE

software identifiedADEQUATE

assumptions verifiedADEQUATE

mathematical plausibilityPASS

Per reviewer (2) — the votes behind the verdict

PASSReviewer 1· 90% conf

Statistical methods are appropriate and well described; effect sizes with CIs are reported; p-values are exact.

Evidence

“We used the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel method, controlling for the randomisation stratification factor (baseline diabetes status), for analysis of the primary and secondary endpoints.”

Statistical analysisFind in source

“risk ratio 1.73 (95% confidence interval (CI) 1.16 to 2.58); P=0.006”

ResultsFind in source

“Mean difference of NAS was −1.39 (95% CI −1.99 to −0.79); P<0.001”

ResultsFind in source

PASSReviewer 2· 90% conf

Statistical methods are appropriate and well-described; effect sizes with CIs are reported; p-values are exact; software is identified.

Evidence

“We used the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel method, controlling for the randomisation stratification factor (baseline diabetes status), for analysis of the primary and secondary endpoints.”

Statistical analysisFind in source

ResultsFind in source

paraphrase[Results, Primary and secondary endpoints]

“The mean difference of NAS was −1.39 (95% CI −1.99 to −0.79); P<0.001).”

Sub-criteria

code sharingADEQUATE

accession numbersN/A

repository depositADEQUATE

data availability statementADEQUATE

Per reviewer (2) — the votes behind the verdict

PASSReviewer 1· 90% conf

Data and code availability are clearly stated with a public repository link.

Evidence

“The data underlying the findings of this paper are available in: https://github.com/Yurence/DEAN_trial.git .”

Data availabilityFind in source

“The codes used to analyse the data can be found in the supplemental files.”

Data availabilityFind in source

PASSReviewer 2· 90% conf

Data availability statement provides a concrete route (GitHub repository) and code is shared; managed access is not needed as data are available in a public repo.

Evidence

“The data underlying the findings of this paper are available in: https://github.com/Yurence/DEAN_trial.git .”

Data availabilityFind in source

“The codes used to analyse the data can be found in the supplemental files.”

Data availabilityFind in source

Sub-criteria

funding coiADEQUATE

trial registrationADEQUATE

reporting guidelineINADEQUATE

methods completenessADEQUATE

all outcomes reportedADEQUATE

limitations discussedADEQUATE

conclusions proportionalADEQUATE

Per reviewer (2) — the votes behind the verdict

PASSReviewer 1· 90% conf

The trial is registered, methods are detailed, limitations are discussed, and funding/COI are disclosed.

Evidence

“Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03723252 .”

AbstractFind in source

“Secondly, the current trial was conducted in a Chinese population, which limits the broader generalisability of the conclusion.”

LimitationsFind in source

paraphrase[Funding and Competing interests sections]

PASSReviewer 2· 95% conf

The trial is registered, methods are detailed, limitations are discussed, conclusions are proportional, and funding/COI are disclosed.

Evidence

“Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03723252 .”

AbstractFind in source

“Secondly, the current trial was conducted in a Chinese population, which limits the broader generalisability of the conclusion.”

LimitationsFind in source

paraphrase[Funding and Competing interests]

Registered (1 ID: ClinicalTrials.gov). No reporting guideline cited.

Broken references and links

None found

References checked against Crossref, OpenAlex and Retraction Watch for retractions and resolvability, plus declared data and code links probed for whether they resolve to content matching the paper.

Checked — nothing surfaced.

Checked 36 references by DOI: 35 verified — 1 no DOI (shown, not verified).

1 data/code link checked; 1 live.

Copyediting

6 minor

Wording, consistency and formatting errors that need correcting before submission.

No major wording or formatting errors. 6 minor suggestions below.

6 copyedit issues flagged: mostly typo, consistency, clarity.

Kaimen Rigor Action ItemsFinal pass before journal submission

1.
HIGHreporting
Correct the possible group-label swap in the Results sentence: 'worsening of fibrosis occurred in 5% (4/76) in the dapagliflozin group, and 22% (17/78) in the placebo group' — the dapagliflozin group has 78 participants and placebo has 76, so the labels may be reversed.
This internal contradiction could mislead readers about the direction of the effect and should be verified and corrected.
2.
HIGHreporting
Explicitly state adherence to CONSORT reporting guidelines in the Methods or a dedicated section.
Both reviewers noted this omission; referencing CONSORT strengthens transparency and is expected for a clinical trial.
3.
MEDIUMcopyedit
Fix the extra closing parenthesis in the Abstract Results: 'Mean difference of NAS was −1.39 (95% CI −1.99 to −0.79); P<0.001).' should read 'Mean difference of NAS was −1.39 (95% CI −1.99 to −0.79); P<0.001.'
Typographical error that could cause confusion.
4.
MEDIUMreporting
Clarify the fibrosis stage percentages in the Results text: 33% (F1) + 45% (F2) + 19% (F3) = 97%, not 100%. Add a note about F0 and F4 stages or explain rounding.
The copyedit and integrity checks flagged this inconsistency; readers may question the completeness of the data.
5.
MEDIUMreporting
Add a statement about the availability of the full protocol and statistical analysis plan (SAP) in a public repository (e.g., ClinicalTrials.gov) to enhance transparency.
Both reviewers suggested this; it improves reproducibility and trust.
6.
MEDIUMreporting
In the Data Availability Statement, clarify the license and any access conditions for the GitHub repository.
Ensures that readers know the terms under which data and code can be reused.
7.
MEDIUMreporting
Add a note in the Methods about how missing data for secondary endpoints were handled beyond the primary non-responder imputation.
Both reviewers noted this gap; it improves methodological transparency.
8.
MEDIUMreporting
In the Discussion, explicitly acknowledge that the primary endpoint was changed from the originally registered endpoint, and discuss the potential impact on interpretation.
Both reviewers flagged this as a transparency issue; readers should be aware of any changes to the primary outcome.
9.
LOWreporting
Consider reporting the number of participants who were screened and excluded at each stage in the CONSORT flow diagram to improve transparency.
Enhances the completeness of the trial reporting.
10.
LOWreporting
In the safety section, provide more detailed tabulation of adverse events by severity and relatedness to treatment.
Improves the completeness of safety reporting.
11.
LOWstatistics
Consider adding a sensitivity analysis using a different imputation method (e.g., multiple imputation with chained equations) to test robustness.
Strengthens the robustness of the primary analysis.
12.
LOWreporting
Add a statement about the use of a data monitoring committee and any interim analyses, if applicable.
Provides additional context about trial oversight.

Full text (43,570 chars)Analyzed: Aug 15, 2026