ArticleTherapeutic advances in gastroenterology2023
Efficacy and safety of medical therapies in microscopic colitis: a systematic review and network meta-analysis.
Article in Therapeutic advances in gastroenterology, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper, 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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
- Heterogeneity in Histological Evaluation of Microscopic Colitis in Randomized Clinical Trials: An Umbrella Review.Inflammatory bowel diseases · 2026Pooled it
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 4 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: The mainstay of treatment for microscopic colitis (MC) is budesonide. However, the optimal formulation and dosage of budesonide to induce and maintain remission has not yet been clearly demonstrated. Objectives: To compare the data for efficacy and safety of treatments to induce and maintain remission for MC. Design: We conducted a meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing treatment with each other or placebo for induction and maintenance of clinical and histological remission in MC. Data sources and methods: We searched MEDLINE (1946 to May 2021), EMBASE and EMBASE Classis (1947 to May 2021), the Cochrane central register of controlled trials (Issue 2, May 2021) and conference proceedings between 2006 and 2020. Results were reported as pooled relative risks (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) to summarise the effect of each comparison tested, with treatments ranked according to p score. Results: We identified 15 RCTs in total for the treatment of MC. Entocort 9 mg ranked first for clinical (RR: 4.89, CI: 2.43-9.83; p score: 0.86) and histological (RR: 13.39, CI: 1.92-93.44; p score 0.94) induction of remission, whilst VSL#3 ranked second for clinical induction (RR: 5.30, CI: 0.68-41.39; p score 0.81). Budenofalk 6 mg/3 mg alternate day dosing ranked first for clinical maintenance of remission (RR: 3.68, CI: 0.08-159.92, p-score 0.65). Entocort and Budenofalk were associated with the greatest adverse events for induction and maintenance of clinical remission, respectively, although the overall withdrawal numbers for treatment Conclusion: Entocort 9 mg/day ranked first among the treatment options in inducing remission and Budenofalk 6 mg/3 mg alternate day dosing for maintaining remission in the treatment of MC. Moving forward, mechanistic studies exploring the differences between Entocort and Budenofalk would be valuable whilst future RCT studies are needed in non-corticosteroidal maintenance, particularly looking into immunomodulators, biologics and probiotics.
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.