SynthesisPloS one2023
An indirect comparison of efficacy including histologic assessment and safety in biologic therapy in ulcerative colitis: Systemic review and network meta-analysis.
Synthesis in PloS one, 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, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Pooled 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
5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BACKGROUNDS AND
aimsThere are currently no studies comparing histologic remission of FDA-approved biologics for moderate to severe ulcerative colitis (UC), except for one head-to-head VARSITY trial. The current study employs a network meta-analysis to compare the efficacy, including histologic remission and safety of biologic agents for UC.
methodsUsing four electronic databases, including Pubmed, EMBASE, The Cochrane Library, and ClinicalTrials.gov, a search was conducted of all literature published until September 2022. Included were studies of randomized controlled trials with adult patients with moderate to severe UC using biologics approved by the FDA. An odd ratio with a 95 percent credible interval and ranking information was calculated for each endpoint.
resultsThe results of the network meta-analysis did not reveal statistically significant differences among biological agents. However, the ranking information for each biological agent exhibited the following patterns. Vedolizumab was ranked first for overall efficacy endpoints in the maintenance phase, including histologic remission. Except for histologic remission, Ustekinumab was identified as the top-ranked drug for induction phase efficacy endpoints other than histologic remission. Adalimumab was identified as the top-ranked drug for maintenance phase corticosteroid-free remission. Vedolizumab was identified as the top-ranked drug in the induction phase for Treatment Emergent Adverse Events (TEAE). Adalimumab was identified as the top-ranked drug in the induction phase for infection. For TEAE and infection in the maintenance phase and Treatment Emergent Severe Adverse Events (TESAE) in both the induction and maintenance phases, Ustekinumab was determined to be the top-ranked medication.
conclusionsIncluding histologic remission, for the overall efficacy endpoints in the maintenance phase, VDZ was identified as the first rank drug, but there was no statistically significant difference between biologics. Therefore, the generalization of the results of this study is bounded due to the intrinsic limitations of the study provided.
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.