ArticleTherapeutic advances in gastroenterology2025
Therapeutic preferences of upadacitinib for patients with inflammatory bowel diseases: a nationwide study among Chinese physicians.
Article 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Upadacitinib (UPA) is a new small-molecule drug for treating inflammatory bowel disease (IBD); however, its therapeutic use in China remains limited. Objectives: This study aimed to explore Chinese physicians' treatment preferences for UPA in IBD and analyze experience-related decision-making differences. Design: A nationwide cross-sectional study conducted among Chinese physicians. Methods: The study was conducted among Chinese physicians using a 69-item questionnaire on physicians' backgrounds and UPA preferences, covering (1) Physician backgrounds (12 items), (2) Therapeutic preferences regarding physicians' attention to different characteristics of UPA and physicians (24 items), and (3) clinical application practices (33 items). Physicians were categorized into experienced and inexperienced groups, and preference differences were compared and analyzed using chi-square or Fisher's exact tests. Results: Of 583 participating physicians, 182 were classified as experienced and 401 as inexperienced. Safety and efficacy were prioritized by 63.8% and 61.6% of physicians, respectively. UPA was preferred for patients with IBD aged 18-60 years (452/583, 77.5%) and with moderate-to-severe disease activity (486/583, 83.4%). For clinical application, experienced physicians preferred efficacy assessments at week 8 (63/182, 34.6%), while inexperienced physicians preferred week 12 (133/401, 33.2%) for patients with ulcerative colitis. Both groups preferred week 12 for efficacy assessments (251/583, 43.0%) and evaluation of perianal involvement (269/583, 46.1%) and extraintestinal manifestations (271/583, 46.5%) in Crohn's disease. Safety concerns included thrombosis, opportunistic infections, and severe infections, with discontinuation recommended for severe infections, cardiovascular events, or thrombosis. Conclusion: This was the first nationwide cross-sectional study to investigate the therapeutic preferences of Chinese physicians for UPA in patients with IBD. These findings provide evidence-based support for UPA applications in China but require further real-world validation.
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.