ReviewCureus2025
Effect of Biologic Therapies in Treating Moderate-to-Severe Ulcerative Colitis: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
Review in Cureus, 2025. 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.
- Probiotic drug interactions in ulcerative colitis: a microbiota and metabolite perspective.Frontiers in microbiology · 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
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Biological therapies have emerged as effective treatments for moderate-to-severe ulcerative colitis (UC). This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to assess the efficacy of different biologic agents for inducing clinical response, remission, and mucosal healing in patients with moderate-to-severe UC. A systematic literature search was conducted in PubMed, Excerpta Medica database (EMBASE), and Cochrane Library from inception to February 2025. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and prospective cohort studies evaluating biologics in adults with moderate-to-severe UC were included. The primary outcomes were clinical response, clinical remission, and mucosal healing. Random-effects meta-analyses were performed to calculate pooled effect estimates. Forty-three studies were included. Biologics were significantly more effective than placebo for inducing clinical response rates (odds ratio (OR): 2.19 (CI 95%: 2.66-3.19) p<0.00001, I
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.