SynthesisDigestive diseases and sciences2026
Sphingosine 1-Phosphate (S1P) Receptor Modulators as an Induction and Maintenance Therapy for Moderate to Severe Ulcerative Colitis: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.
Synthesis in Digestive diseases and sciences, 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundSphingosine-1-phosphate receptor (S1PR) modulators have emerged as a novel therapeutic class for ulcerative colitis (UC), yet their overall efficacy and safety across clinical trials have not been comprehensively evaluated. This meta-analysis assesses the impact of S1PR modulators on clinical, endoscopic, and histological outcomes in UC.
methodsA systematic search of PubMed, CENTRAL, Google Scholar, and ClinicalTrials.gov was conducted through November 20, 2025. Randomized controlled trials evaluating S1PR modulators in adults with UC were included. Risk of bias was assessed using the RoB 2 tool, and pooled estimates were calculated using a random-effects model.
resultsEight trials involving 2663 participants were included. Analysis comparing S1PR modulators with placebo included etrasimod, ozanimod, tamuzimod, and KRP203. S1PR modulators significantly improved clinical response during induction (RR 2.47; p < 0.00001) and maintenance (RR 3.30; p = 0.0002). Clinical remission was also significantly increased in both the induction (RR 1.84; p < 0.00001) and maintenance phases (RR 2.20; p = 0.0001). Endoscopic improvement was significantly enhanced during induction (RR 2.32; p < 0.00001) and remained significant in maintenance (RR 1.95; p = 0.03). Histological remission improved significantly in both induction (RR 2.59; p < 0.00001) and maintenance (RR 2.60; p < 0.00001). Mucosal healing was significantly increased in the induction (RR 2.54; p < 0.00001) and maintenance phases (RR 2.21; p < 0.00001). Adverse events were slightly increased with S1PR modulators (RR 1.13; p = 0.002), while serious adverse events (p = 0.73) and discontinuations (p = 0.67) did not differ significantly from placebo.
conclusionS1PR modulators demonstrate robust efficacy during the induction phase across all key clinical and tissue-based outcomes, with more modest or variable effects during maintenance. Their safety profile remains acceptable, supporting their role as a promising therapeutic option for UC.
Indexed as
Identifiers
41968221What 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.