ArticleCrohn's & colitis 3602026
Impact of missing patient report outcomes in clinical trials for ulcerative colitis: Should we always assume treatment failure?
Article in Crohn's & colitis 360, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to 2 registered trials, which are not on this 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.
Phase III, Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled, Multicenter Study of the Efficacy and Safety of Etrolizumab During Induction and Maintenance in Patients With Moderate to Severe Active Ulcerative Colitis Who Have Been Previously Exposed to TNF Inhibitors
Phase III, Randomized, Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled, Multicenter Study to Evaluate the Efficacy (Maintenance of Remission) and Safety of Etrolizumab Compared With Placebo in Patients With Moderate to Severe Active Ulcerative Colitis Who Are Naive to TNF Inhibitors
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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Patient-reported outcomes (PRO) are key outcome measures in inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) trials. Typically, missing PRO data are imputed as treatment failures, even for patients completing trials with objective endpoints such as endoscopic data corroborating treatment effectiveness. This study investigated whether the final trial readout would change if PRO data imputation were more aligned with clinical practice. Methods: Post-hoc analyses from two negative ulcerative colitis phase 3 etrolizumab trials: LAUREL and HICKORY. Non-responder imputation (NRI), last observation carried forward (LOCF), and hybrid methods using multiple imputation were utilized to handle missing PRO data for study completers. Treatment effects (TE) on clinical remission were compared. Monte Carlo simulations were used to evaluate the performance of various imputation methods. Results: Among completers, 15% in LAUREL and 11% in HICKORY had missing PRO data at the end of the maintenance period. The majority of patients with only PRO missing were in etrolizumab arms, especially for endoscopic responders. NRI resulted in a 3%-5% decrease in TE estimates compared to LOCF and hybrid methods. Monte Carlo simulations confirmed that NRI can underestimate TEs and reduce power. While LOCF can mitigate this bias and power loss, the hybrid method produces the most unbiased and robust results. Conclusions: Appropriately handling missing PRO data in patients completing treatment can reduce bias and improve the validity and reliability of efficacy analysis, potentially enhancing the ability of detecting therapeutic effects. This strategy should be considered in future clinical trials of IBD. Clinical trial registration: LAUREL (NCT02165215) and HICKORY (NCT02100696).
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.