SynthesisThe Cochrane database of systematic reviews2017
Interventions for treating collagenous colitis.
Synthesis in The Cochrane database of systematic reviews, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 19 papers, 2 of them syntheses 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
19 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 132 citations in OpenAlex.
- Heterogeneity in Histological Evaluation of Microscopic Colitis in Randomized Clinical Trials: An Umbrella Review.Inflammatory bowel diseases · 2026Pooled it
- Pooled it
- Development and validation of a novel patient-reported outcome for microscopic colitis-Microscopic Colitis Score (MCS).Journal of Crohn's & colitis · 2025Article
- Microscopic Colitis: An Underestimated Disease of Growing Importance.Journal of clinical medicine · 2024Review
- Coeliac Disease and Microscopic Colitis: The Largest Study Assessing Prognosis and Risk of Hospital Admission.Nutrients · 2024Article
- Diagnosis and Pharmacological Management of Microscopic Colitis in Geriatric Care.Drugs & aging · 2024Article
- The interaction of bile acids and gut inflammation influences the pathogenesis of inflammatory bowel disease.Internal and emergency medicine · 2023Review
- Microscopic Colitis: A Review Article.Cureus · 2023Review
- Efficacy and safety of medical therapies in microscopic colitis: a systematic review and network meta-analysis.Therapeutic advances in gastroenterology · 2023Article
- Microscopic colitis: an update.Medicine and pharmacy reports · 2022Review
- Article
- Diagnosis and Management of Microscopic Colitis in Pediatric Patients.Paediatric drugs · 2022Review
- β-Boswellic Acid Suppresses Breast Precancerous LesionsFrontiers in oncology · 2022Article
- Microscopic colitis in older adults: impact, diagnosis, and management.Therapeutic advances in chronic disease · 2022Review
- Mucosal and faecal neutrophil gelatinase-associated lipocalin as potential biomarkers for collagenous colitis.Journal of gastroenterology · 2021Article
- Microscopic colitis.Nature reviews. Disease primers · 2021Review
- European guidelines on microscopic colitis: United European Gastroenterology and European Microscopic Colitis Group statements and recommendations.United European gastroenterology journal · 2021Article
- Controversials of Microscopic Colitis.Frontiers in medicine · 2021Review
- Editorial: The Dark Side of Microscopic Colitis.Frontiers in medicine · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
- Update of
Authors and funding
6 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundCollagenous colitis is a cause of chronic diarrhea. This updated review was performed to identify therapies for collagenous colitis that have been assessed in randomized controlled trials (RCTs).
objectivesThe primary objective was to assess the benefits and harms of treatments for collagenous colitis. SEARCH
methodsWe searched CENTRAL, the Cochrane IBD Group Specialized Register, MEDLINE and EMBASE from inception to 7 November 2016. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included RCTs comparing a therapy with placebo or active comparator for the treatment of active or quiescent collagenous colitis. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Data were independently extracted by two authors. The primary outcome was clinical response or maintenance of response as defined by the included studies. Secondary outcome measures included histological response, quality of life and the occurrence of adverse events. Risk ratios (RR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated for dichotomous outcomes. The Cochrane risk of bias tool was used to assess bias. The overall quality of the evidence was assessed using the GRADE criteria. MAIN
resultsTwelve RCTs (476 participants) were included. These studies assessed bismuth subsalicylate, Boswellia serrata extract, mesalamine, cholestyramine, probiotics, prednisolone and budesonide therapy. Four studies were low risk of bias. One study assessing mesalamine and cholestyramine was judged to be high risk of bias due to no blinding. The other studies had an unclear risk of bias for random sequence generation (five studies) allocation concealment (six studies), blinding (one study), incomplete outcome data (one study) and selective outcome reporting (one study). Clinical response occurred in 100% (4/4) of patients who received bismuth subsalicylate (nine 262 mg tablets daily for 8 weeks) compared to 0% (0/5) of patients who received placebo (1 study; 9 participants; RR 10.80, 95% CI 0.75 to 155.93; GRADE = very low). Clinical response occurred in 44% (7/16) of patients who received Boswellia serrata extract (three 400 mg/day capsules for 8 weeks) compared to 27% (4/15) of patients who received placebo (1 study; 31 participants; RR 1.64, 95% CI 0.60 to 4.49; GRADE = low). Clinical response occurred in 80% (24/30) of budesonide patients compared to 44% (11/25) of mesalamine patients (1 study; 55 participants; RR 1.82, 95% CI 1.13 to 2.93; GRADE = low). Histological response was observed in 87% (26/30) of budesonide patients compared to 44% (11/25) of mesalamine patients (1 study, 55 participants; RR 1.97, 95% CI 1.24 to 3.13; GRADE = low). There was no difference between the two treatments with respect to adverse events (RR 0.69, 95% CI 0.43 to 1.10; GRADE = low), withdrawals due to adverse events (RR 0.09, 95% CI 0.01 to 1.65; GRADE = low) and serious adverse events (RR 0.12, 95% CI 0.01 to 2.21; GRADE = low). Clinical response occurred in 44% (11/25) of mesalamine patients (3 g/day) compared to 59% (22/37) of placebo patients (1 study; 62 participants; RR 0.74, 95% CI 0.44 to 1.24; GRADE = low). Histological response was observed in 44% (11/25) and 51% (19/37) of patients receiving mesalamine and placebo, respectively (1 study; 62 participants; RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.50 to 1.47; GRADE = low). There was no difference between the two treatments with respect to adverse events (RR 1.26, 95% CI 0.84 to 1.88; GRADE = low), withdrawals due to adverse events (RR 5.92, 95% CI 0.70 to 49.90; GRADE = low) and serious adverse events (RR 4.44, 95% CI 0.49 to 40.29; GRADE = low). Clinical response occurred in 63% (5/8) of prednisolone (50 mg/day for 2 weeks) patients compared to 0% (0/3) of placebo patients (1 study, 11 participants; RR 4.89, 95% CI 0.35 to 68.83; GRADE = very low). Clinical response occurred in 29% (6/21) of patients who received probiotics (2 capsules containing 0.5 x 10 AUTHORS'
conclusionsLow quality evidence suggests that budesonide may be effective for inducing and maintaining clinical and histological response in patients with collagenous colitis. We are uncertain about the benefits and harms of therapy with bismuth subsalicylate, Boswellia serrata extract, mesalamine with or without cholestramine, prednisolone and probiotics. These agents and other therapies require further study.
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.