ReviewCureus2026
A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Clinical Trials of the Efficacy of Mesalazine in Irritable Bowel Syndrome.
Review in Cureus, 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Mesalazine (5-aminosalicylic acid, 5-ASA) has been proposed as a therapeutic option for irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) due to its anti-inflammatory properties, but its efficacy remains uncertain. This systematic review and meta-analysis evaluated randomized controlled trials comparing mesalazine versus placebo in adult patients with IBS. A systematic search of PubMed, ScienceDirect, and Google Scholar was conducted up to March 23, 2026. Only the first 100 Google Scholar results sorted by relevance were screened. Risk ratios (RRs) and standardized mean differences (SMDs) were pooled using a random-effects model, and risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane RoB 2 tool. Seven randomized controlled trials involving 569 participants were included. Mesalazine did not significantly improve global IBS symptom response compared with placebo (RR 1.11, 95% CI 0.93-1.32; I² = 10%). No significant effect was observed for abdominal pain (SMD -0.10, 95% CI -0.82 to 0.61; I² = 83%). However, mesalazine significantly improved global IBS symptom scores (SMD -0.39, 95% CI -0.64 to -0.15; I² = 16%). The overall risk of bias was low to moderate across studies. In conclusion, mesalazine does not significantly improve global IBS response or abdominal pain, but it may modestly reduce overall symptom burden. Further high-quality randomized controlled trials are needed to identify whether selected IBS phenotypes with mucosal immune activation may benefit from mesalazine.
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.