ArticleFrontiers in gastroenterology (Lausanne, Switzerland)2026
Retrospective analysis of ustekinumab in Crohn's disease between biologic-naïve and biologic-experienced.
Article in Frontiers in gastroenterology (Lausanne, Switzerland), 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
Objective: This thesis investigates the differences in clinical efficacy of ustekinumab (UST) as a biologic-naïve or biologic-experienced for Crohn's Disease (CD) patients in terms of clinical manifestations and laboratory test indicators. It also explores the correlation between clinical response status and patients' quality of life, as well as their anxiety and depression levels. Method: This study involved 61 CD patients treated with UST. We gathered clinical data, laboratory results, CDAI scores and SES-CD scores at 0, 8, and 32 week, and assessed quality of life and psychological state at baseline and week 32. Initially, patients were divided into biologic-naïve and biologic-experienced groups based on their previous biologic history. By analyzing the changes in laboratory indicators at weeks 0, 8, and 32, as well as the differences in the degree of these changes, the effectiveness of different treatment regimens was evaluated. At the end of the treatment (week 32), 61 patients were reclassified into the clinical response group and the non-response group based on the decrease in CDAI score. Subsequently, statistical methods were used to assess the differences in quality of life and psychological status between these two response groups. Results: There was no statistically significant difference in the baseline data between the biologic-naïve and biologic-experienced groups ( Conclusion: UST can improve the inflammation and nutritional status of patients with CD who are biologic-naïve or biologic-experienced. The clinical and endoscopic improvement benefits for the biologic-naïve are more prominent. The quality of life of patients who achieved a clinical response has improved more significantly. Anxiety symptoms can be somewhat alleviated, while the depressive state has not shown any significant change.
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.