ArticleIntestinal research2026
Comparative effectiveness of ustekinumab versus infliximab in the management of perianal fistulizing Crohn's disease: a retrospective study in China.
Article in Intestinal research, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Medical Therapies Beyond Infliximab for Perianal Fistulizing Crohn's Disease: Current Evidence and Future Perspectives.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Review
- Advanced Medical Therapies for Perianal Fistulizing Crohn's Disease: A Systematic Review of Clinical, Radiological, Surgical, and Composite Outcomes.Pharmaceuticals (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- The efficacy of ustekinumab in the management of perianal fistulizing Crohn's disease.Intestinal research · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
Abstract
BACKGROUND/
aimsUstekinumab (UST) and infliximab (IFX) are both effective in the treatment of perianal fistulizing Crohn's disease (CD), but limited research has focused on comparing the efficacy of UST versus IFX in this field. This study aimed to compare the effectiveness of UST or IFX in treating perianal fistula of CD patients naive to biological agents in a real-world setting.
methodsA retrospective cohort study included patients with perianal fistulizing CD treated with UST or IFX was conducted to evaluate the rates of luminal and perianal fistula response and remission at 6 months after treatment.
resultsNinety-seven patients (49 UST and 48 IFX) were enrolled. Compared to IFX, UST exhibited significantly higher rates of treatment success (89.8% vs. 50.0%, P< 0.001) and intestinal clinical response (85.7% vs. 68.8%, P= 0.048), but no significant differences in fistula remission, fistula response, fistula closure, intestinal clinical remission, endoscopic remission and endoscopic response was observed. Furthermore, multivariate analyses demonstrated complexity of fistula was conversely associated with fistula remission between the UST and IFX groups. Finally, the rates of disease relapse and operation in the IFX group were higher as compared to the UST group during follow-up.
conclusionsUST may serve as a promising alternative to IFX for the treatment of perianal fistulizing CD.
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.