ReviewTranslational gastroenterology and hepatology2026
Ileocolic resection versus medical therapy for Crohn's disease in the post-biologic era: a systematic review.
Review in Translational gastroenterology and hepatology, 2026. 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Crohn's disease (CD) is a chronic, idiopathic inflammatory bowel condition with increasing incidence globally. For a long time, the treatment for ileal disease relied on surgery for complications or refractoriness to conventional clinical management. With the advent of immunobiological agents, the natural history of the disease has been altered, establishing a new treatment paradigm. This study aimed to perform a systematic review (SR) depicting the role of surgical resection in the post-biological era, especially as initial therapy for limited disease. Methods: A comprehensive search of PubMed, PubMed PMC, BVS/BIREME, CINAHL, Web of Science, Embase, Cochrane Library, and ProQuest databases was performed, including studies published up to July 2025. Results: Six retrospective and two prospective studies were included, all developed in Europe, except for one in Canada. Only one included a pediatric population. Of the eight studies, two directly compared ileocolic resection with biological therapy. The remaining studies assessed only surgical outcomes. Five studies evaluated complications after surgical treatment and one after medical treatment, with median rates of 10% and 3%, respectively. Five studies analyzed clinical remission rates, and five assessed endoscopic remission at varying follow-up times. At approximately 1 year of follow-up, endoscopic remission rates ranged from 29% to 79% in the surgical group and from 48% to 84% in the biologics group. Clinical remission was assessed only in the surgical group, with rates of 60%, 83.7%, and 92% at 1 year, and 74% and 88% at 10 years. In the direct comparison of surgery versus biological therapy, only one study evaluated the subsequent need for additional biological treatment during follow-up, and this need was similar among the groups. Conclusions: Ileocolectomy is an effective and viable therapeutic alternative to primary biological therapy for localized and refractory ileal CD. Early surgery can offer more sustained control for specific phenotypes, reducing the need for long-term treatment. The decision should be individualized, taking into account risks, disease phenotype, and patient preferences. Further randomized trials are needed to refine recommendations.
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.