ArticleEuropean journal of clinical pharmacology2012
Comparison of the effect of mesalazine and sulfasalazine on laboratory parameters: a retrospective observational study.
Article in European journal of clinical pharmacology, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 14 citations in OpenAlex.
- Blood-test monitoring strategies for patients established on immune-suppressing drugs: a mixed-methods study.Health technology assessment (Winchester, England) · 2026Pooled it
- Potential of pharmacogenetics in treatment of chronic inflammatory diseases - a danish report overview from 2000 - 2024.The pharmacogenomics journal · 2026Review
- Invasive Fungal Rhinosinusitis with Orbital Apex Syndrome Leading to Brain Abscess in a Patient with Ulcerative Colitis.Yonago acta medica · 2021Article
- Review article: the role of oxidative stress in pathogenesis and treatment of inflammatory bowel diseases.Naunyn-Schmiedeberg's archives of pharmacology · 2014Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeMesalazine and sulfasalazine are commonly used drugs for the treatment of inflammatory bowel disease. However, there have been few reports with a strict statistical analysis comparing the effects of mesalazine and sulfasalazine on laboratory test results. Therefore, we designed a retrospective cohort study to investigate whether or not differences in clinical laboratory parameters exist between mesalazine and sulfasalazine users.
methodsWe used data from the Clinical Data Warehouse of Nihon University School of Medicine to identify cohorts of new mesalazine users (n = 303) and sulfasalazine users (n = 67). We used a multivariate regression model and regression adjustment with the propensity score to adjust for differences in baseline covariates between mesalazine and sulfasalazine users, and compared serum levels of creatinine, urea nitrogen, aspartate aminotransferase, alanine aminotransferase, and hematological parameters including red and white blood cell counts and platelet count.
resultsAfter adjustment, in sulfasalazine users, the mean values for all tests showed no significant change between baseline and during the exposure period. In contrast, in mesalazine users, the mean WBC and platelet counts during the exposure period were significantly lower than those at baseline. Furthermore, mean serum urea nitrogen level during the exposure period was significantly higher than that at baseline. In terms of mean changes in laboratory test values during the exposure period compared with baseline, the reduction of platelet count in mesalazine users was significant in comparison to that in sulfasalazine users.
conclusionOur findings suggested that the hematological adverse effects of mesalazine treatment might be greater than those of sulfasalazine treatment.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.