ArticlePloS one2021
Efficacy and safety of Qingre-Chushi therapies in active ulcerative colitis: A network meta-analysis.
Article in PloS one, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundUlcerative colitis (UC) is a chronic inflammatory disease with an increasing incidence in the world. Qingre-Chushi therapies (QC) can alleviate clinical symptoms. Therefore, a network meta-analysis was conducted to systematically evaluate the efficacy and safety of QC in the treatment of active UC patients.
methods7 databases were screened and relevant randomized controlled trials were selected. The tools of Cochrane Handbook and the GRADE system were conducted to assess the quality of outcomes. Pooled risk ratio or standard mean difference was calculated with 95% credible interval for outcomes measurement using the random-effects model. The surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA) was performed to rank the treatments. The larger SUCRA scores, the more effective interventions.
resultsA total of 3560 articles were identified and 21 studies including 1829 participants were included for further analysis. Totally, 9 therapies regimens were compared: oral mesalazine, mesalazine enema, mesalazine suppository, oral mesalazine + mesalazine enema, oral QC, oral QC + oral mesalazine, QC enema, oral QC + QC enema, and oral mesalazine + QC enema. Based on the SUCRA plot, oral QC + oral mesalazine was the best treatment in inducing clinical response; oral QC + QC enema had the best efficacy in the improvement of Mayo scores and alleviating abdominal pain; oral mesalazine + mesalazine enema was the optimal therapy in the endoscopic improvement and reducing diarrhea; QC enema + oral mesalazine was the best option in preventing bloody stool.
conclusionThis study confirmed the efficacy and safety of QC in treating active UC and suggested that the combination of oral medications with topical can achieve more benefits.
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.