SynthesisFrontiers in pharmacology2025
The efficacy of aminosalicylates in acute radiation enteritis: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Frontiers in pharmacology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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.
- The Evolving Research Landscape of Radiation Enteritis Prevention and Management: A Data-Driven Analysis.Journal of inflammation research · 2026Article
- Ameliorative effects and mechanism ofFrontiers in immunology · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background and purpose: Aminosalicylates have been used for the prevention and treatment of radiation enteritis (RE) for more than 50 years. However, their effectiveness in acute radiation enteritis (ARE) has been controversial. We conducted a meta-analysis to clarify the clinical efficacy of aminosalicylates in controlling the symptoms of ARE. Materials and methods: We searched PubMed, Cochrane Library, Embase, and Web of Science for studies published before January 2020. Eligible randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing the incidence of diarrhea, abdominal pain, constipation, tenesmus, and hematochezia between the aminosalicylates and control groups were included. Subgroup analyses were conducted based on different drugs and doses. Publication bias was assessed using funnel plots. Results: Seven RCTs with 613 patients were included. Aminosalicylates reduced the incidence of mild to moderate diarrhea (P < 0.05), while total diarrhea, severe diarrhea, abdominal pain, hematochezia, tenesmus, and constipation showed no significant differences from the control group. Subgroup analysis showed that sulfasalazine (SASP) reduced mild to moderate diarrhea (P < 0.05), whereas 5-aminosalicylic acid (5-ASA) increased total and severe diarrhea (P < 0.05). Additionally, when aminosalicylate doses exceeded 2 g/d, diarrhea incidence increased (P < 0.05). Conclusion: SASP is a safe and effective treatment for mild to moderate diarrhea, while 5-ASA may increase diarrhea incidence in ARE patients. Aminosalicylates at ≤2 g/d are safe for ARE, but higher doses may worsen diarrhea.
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.