ArticleAnnals of gastroenterology
Interleukin 12/23 and interleukin 23 inhibitors for moderate-to-severe ulcerative colitis: a systematic review and network meta-analysis.
Article in Annals of gastroenterology. 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.
- Targeting IL-23p19 in Inflammatory Bowel Disease: The Road Ahead.Journal of inflammation research · 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
15 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Ulcerative colitis (UC) is a chronic inflammatory disease affecting ~1.5 million individuals, causing significant impairment in quality of life, psychological well-being, and healthcare burden. Using indirect meta-analysis, this study compared the efficacy and safety of anti-interleukin (IL)-12/23 and IL-23 agents vs. placebo and each other, during induction and maintenance in moderate-to-severe UC. Methods: A systematic search of PubMed, Cochrane, Scopus, Web of Science, and ClinicalTrials. gov was conducted on October 1, 2024. The randomized controlled trials (RCTs) included evaluated ustekinumab, mirikizumab, risankizumab, and guselkumab. The primary outcomes were clinical remission and endoscopic improvement at both induction and maintenance endpoints. Odds ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) and surface under the cumulative ranking (SUCRA) values were used to rank treatment efficacy. Results: Six RCTs (n=3808) were analyzed for induction and 5 RCTs (n=1697) for maintenance. During induction, risankizumab demonstrated the highest clinical remission rates (OR 3.89, 95%CI 2.24-6.75; SUCRA 80.7%) and endoscopic improvement rates (OR 4.21, 95%CI 2.12-8.35; SUCRA 87.6%) compared to placebo. In maintenance, guselkumab showed the highest clinical remission (OR 4.28, 95%CI 1.58-11.59; SUCRA 81.6%) and endoscopic improvement (OR 4.21, 95%CI 2.12-8.35; SUCRA 93.1%), and was superior to risankizumab (OR 2.05, 95%CI 1.09-3.84) for endoscopic outcomes. Conclusions: Risankizumab was most effective in induction, while guselkumab was more effective in maintenance. Head-to-head trials are warranted.
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.