SynthesisFrontiers in nutrition2026
Comparative efficacy of dietary interventions and enteral nutrition in adults with ulcerative colitis: a network meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Frontiers in nutrition, 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
Objective: To compare the effects of dietary and enteral nutrition interventions on clinical effectiveness, albumin, C reactive protein, and quality of life in adults with ulcerative colitis. Methods: PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, CNKI, SinoMed, and Wanfang were searched from inception to January 2026. Randomized controlled trials evaluating dietary or enteral nutrition interventions in adults with ulcerative colitis were included. Bayesian network meta analysis was performed using odds ratios or mean differences with 95% credible intervals. Risk of bias and confidence in the evidence were assessed using RoB 2 and CINeMA. Results: Fourteen trials involving 1,039 participants and 10 interventions were included. Enteral nutrition was associated with greater clinical effectiveness than a low residue diet (OR 4.80, 95% CrI 1.21-23.52), and the finding remained consistent in sensitivity analyses. Compared with a low residue diet, enteral nutrition, an IgG guided exclusion diet, a low-FODMAP diet, and a regular diet were associated with higher albumin levels. No statistically significant differences were found for quality of life or C-reactive protein. Confidence in all network estimates was low or very low. Conclusion: Enteral nutrition may improve clinical effectiveness compared with a low residue diet, while several interventions may increase albumin levels. However, the limited evidence precludes firm conclusions. Further large and rigorously designed randomized controlled trials are required. Systematic review registration: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/view/CRD420251076943.
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.