ArticleGastroenterology report2024
Comparison of accelerated and standard infliximab induction regimens in acute severe ulcerative colitis using propensity score analysis: a retrospective multicenter study in China.
Article in Gastroenterology report, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers, 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Comparative outcomes of advanced medical rescue therapies in steroid-refractory acute severe ulcerative colitis: a systematic review and network meta-analysis.Frontiers in gastroenterology (Lausanne, Switzerland) · 2026Pooled it
- [Advances in the clinical management of acute severe ulcerative colitis].Zhejiang da xue xue bao. Yi xue ban = Journal of Zhejiang University. Medical sciences · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: The optimal regimen of infliximab salvage in acute severe ulcerative colitis (ASUC) patients remains controversial. This study aimed to compare accelerated and standard infliximab induction in Chinese ASUC patients, and to explore risk factors and concrete accelerated regimens for them. Methods: Data were retrospectively collected from steroid-refractory ASUC patients receiving infliximab as rescue therapy at seven tertiary centers across China. Outcomes including colectomy and clinical remission (Mayo score ≤ 2 and every subscore ≤ 1 at Day 14) rates were compared between patients receiving accelerated and standard infliximab induction using propensity score adjustment for potential confounders. The dose-response relationship was explored by plotting restricted cubic splines. Logistic regression and Cox proportional hazards regression analyses were performed to determine risk factors for adverse outcomes. A systematic review and meta-analysis was also performed. Results: A total of 76 patients were analysed: 29 received standard and 47 received accelerated induction. The accelerated group had a higher 90-day colectomy rate (17.8% vs 0%, Conclusions: After adjusting for confounders, there were no significant differences in colectomy or clinical remission rates between accelerated and standard infliximab induction among ASUC patients. Early administration of an intensified dosage within 5 days may be beneficial. Elevated C-reactive protein at infliximab initiation indicated need for intensive 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.