ArticleFrontline gastroenterology2020
Practice pattern variability in the management of acute severe colitis: a UK provider survey.
Article in Frontline gastroenterology, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- Patient preferences and current practice for adults with steroid-resistant ulcerative colitis: POPSTER mixed-methods study.Health technology assessment (Winchester, England) · 2022Article
- Infliximab in acute severe colitis: getting the right dose.Frontline gastroenterology · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
15 authors at 13 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionLack of comparative trial data on dosing regimens of infliximab in patients with acute severe ulcerative colitis (ASUC) failing intravenous corticosteroids has resulted in variability of rescue regimes in ASUC with potential impact on clinical outcomes. We aimed to evaluate practice variability and physician perspectives in decision-making with rescue therapy. METHODOLOGY: An internet-based survey of members of the inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) section of the British Society of Gastroenterology was conducted. The survey evaluated provider characteristics and general practice in the setting of ASUC, followed by a vignette with linked questions.
resultsThe response rate of the survey was 31% (209/682 IBD section members). 134 (78%) reported they would use standard infliximab dose (5 mg/kg) while 37 (22%) favoured a higher front-loading dose of 10 mg/kg citing low albumin, high C-reactive protein as their reason for their preference. IBD specialists chose the higher front-loading dose more often compared with other gastroenterologists (p=0.01) In the specific case vignette, accelerated induction (AI) was favoured by 51% of the respondents while 25% used the standard induction regime and 19% favoured colectomy. IBD specialists more often favoured AI compared with other gastroenterologists (p=0.03) with the main reason being presence of predictors of low infliximab levels (74%). The reasons cited for favouring standard induction (n=57) included lack of evidence for AI (18), their usual practice (11), unlicensed regime (7), and safety concerns (4).
conclusionsThere are significant variations in practice in the use of infliximab rescue therapies with an urgent need for development of care pathways to standardise practice.
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.