Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35240984›Full record

SynthesisBMC gastroenterology2022

Systematic review and meta-analysis: the advantage of endoscopic Mayo score 0 over 1 in patients with ulcerative colitis.

Angelo Viscido, Marco Valvano, Gianpiero Stefanelli, Annalisa Capannolo, Chiara Castellini, Eugenia Onori, Antonio Ciccone, Filippo Vernia, Giovanni Latella

Open access · goldAbstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in BMC gastroenterology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 26 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
26citing papers in PubMed
7.5field-weighted citation impact, top 2% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

26 citing papers in PubMed, 42 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Angelo Viscido *Gastroenterology Unit, Division of Gastroenterology, Hepatology, and Nutrition, Department of Life, Health and Environmental Sciences, University of L'Aquila, Piazzale Salvatore Tommasi 1, 67100, L'Aquila, Italy. angelo.viscido@univaq.it.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8513-3758
Marco Valvano *Gastroenterology Unit, Division of Gastroenterology, Hepatology, and Nutrition, Department of Life, Health and Environmental Sciences, University of L'Aquila, Piazzale Salvatore Tommasi 1, 67100, L'Aquila, Italy.
Gianpiero StefanelliGastroenterology Unit, Division of Gastroenterology, Hepatology, and Nutrition, Department of Life, Health and Environmental Sciences, University of L'Aquila, Piazzale Salvatore Tommasi 1, 67100, L'Aquila, Italy.
Annalisa CapannoloGastroenterology Unit, Division of Gastroenterology, Hepatology, and Nutrition, Department of Life, Health and Environmental Sciences, University of L'Aquila, Piazzale Salvatore Tommasi 1, 67100, L'Aquila, Italy.
Chiara CastelliniAndrology Unit, Department of Life, Health and Environmental Sciences, University of L'Aquila, L'Aquila, Italy.
Eugenia OnoriInternal Medicine and Nephrology Unit, Department of Life, Health and Environmental Sciences, University of L'Aquila, L'Aquila, Italy.
Antonio CicconeGastroenterology and Digestive Endoscopy Unit, ASUR 1, Pesaro, Italy.
Filippo VerniaGastroenterology Unit, Division of Gastroenterology, Hepatology, and Nutrition, Department of Life, Health and Environmental Sciences, University of L'Aquila, Piazzale Salvatore Tommasi 1, 67100, L'Aquila, Italy.
Giovanni LatellaGastroenterology Unit, Division of Gastroenterology, Hepatology, and Nutrition, Department of Life, Health and Environmental Sciences, University of L'Aquila, Piazzale Salvatore Tommasi 1, 67100, L'Aquila, Italy.
University of L'Aquila · IT

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundMucosal healing (MH) evaluated by endoscopy is a novel target of therapy in UC as it is associated with improved long-term outcomes. It is defined based on the Mayo endoscopic score (MES), but it is still to define whether a value of MES 0 or 1 should be the target. The purpose of this paper is to present the results of a systematic review with meta-analysis which compares long-term outcomes of patients in steroid-free clinical remission with MES 0 with those with MES 1.

methodsA systematic electronic search of the literature was performed using Medline, Scopus, and CENTRAL through December 2020 (PROSPERO n:CRD42020179333). The studies concerned UC patients, in steroid-free clinical remission, with MES of 0 or 1, and with at least 12-months of follow-up.

resultsOut of 4611 citations, 15 eligible studies were identified. Increases in clinical relapse among patients with MES 1 were observed in all the studies included in this review, suggesting that MES of 1 have a higher risk of relapse than a score of 0. MES 0 patients displayed a lower risk of clinical relapse (OR 0.33; 95% CI 0.26-0.43; I

conclusionsMES 0 is associated with a lower rate of clinical relapse than is MES 1. For this reason, MES 0, rather than MES 0-1, should be considered the therapeutic target for patients with UC.

Indexed as

Colitis, UlcerativeColectomyColonoscopyHumansIntestinal MucosaSeverity of Illness IndexWound HealingInflammatory bowel disease (IBD)Mayo endoscopic score (MES)Mucosal healing (MH)Steroid-free clinical remissionUlcerative colitis (UC)

Identifiers

PMID35240984
PMCPMC8895505
OpenAlexW4214822689

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.