ReviewTherapeutic advances in gastroenterology2025
A literature survey on follow-up definitions on the use of infliximab in Crohn's disease.
Review in Therapeutic advances in gastroenterology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Many clinical studies arbitrarily define follow-up durations as short-term, mid-term, or long-term, without standardized criteria. To examine existing research on the use of infliximab in Crohn's disease to understand how these terms are defined and applied, a literature survey was conducted. Relevant studies were identified by querying Web of Science and Scopus with predefined keywords, focusing on articles that mentioned "short-term," "mid-term," or "long-term" in their title, abstract, or author keywords. The majority of the papers were published in gastroenterology and hepatology journals (75.6%), since 2010 (77.3%), and primarily involved retrospective data (64.8%). Most studies measured follow-up duration from the first infliximab infusion (65.3%). The mean follow-up durations were 4.06 months for short-term (based on 46 papers), 9.47 months for mid-term (based on 3 papers), and 37.58 months for long-term studies (based on 155 papers). Retrospective studies tended to have significantly longer mean durations for long-term follow-up than prospective studies. Notably, the ranges for short-term and long-term follow-ups overlapped, indicating inconsistent definitions across studies. Currently, there is no consensus on the durations associated with these terms. Standardized reporting with explicit timeframes in months or years is essential to improve comparability and clarity in future research.
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.