ReviewCureus2024
A Literature Review of Microscopic Colitis.
Review in Cureus, 2024. 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.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Although the clinical importance of microscopic colitis (MC) is highly increasing, however, the disease is still mysterious due to several challenges. Recent MC data depend mainly on doubts and uncertainties leading to misclassification. This review discussed the current knowledge gaps about MC and various controversies regarding its subtypes, pathogenesis, and management. The diagnosis of MC is based mainly on histology and immunohistopathology which can discriminate two subtypes. However, transitional forms are often associated with misclassification. The site and number of the colon biopsies have been agreed upon as at least three from each side of the colon (right and left) with a total of six. There is no credible, clear explanation for the increased incidence. The etiopathogenesis is possibly multifactorial with a high impact on the immunological background. It is proposed that MC would be the initiative of irritable bowel disease, which needs further data clarification. Although budesonide is an effective treatment in most cases, budesonide-refractory MC represents a significant clinical challenge. Therefore, immunomodulators and biologics are now well-thought to be the second-line choice for treatment.
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.