Once daily oral mesalamine compared to conventional dosing for induction and maintenance of remission in ulcerative colitis: A systematic review and meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We systematically reviewed and compared the efficacy and safety of once daily (OD) mesalamine to conventional dosing for induction and maintenance of remission in ulcerative colitis (UC). A literature search to January 2012 identified all applicable randomized trials. Study quality was evaluated using the Cochrane risk of bias tool. The GRADE criteria were used to assess the overall quality of the evidence. Studies were subgrouped by formulation for meta-analysis. Eleven studies that evaluated 4070 patients were identified. The risk of bias was low for most factors, although five studies were single-blind and one was open-label. No difference was observed between the dosing strategies in the proportion of patients with clinical remission (relative risk [RR] 0.95; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.82-1.10), clinical improvement (RR 0.87 95% CI 0.68-1.10), or relapse at 6 (RR 1.10; 95% CI 0.83-1.46) or 12 months (RR 0.92; 95% CI 0.83-1.03). Subgroup analyses showed no important differences in efficacy. No significant difference was demonstrated in rates of medication adherence or adverse events between OD and conventional dosing. OD mesalamine appears to be as effective and safe as conventional dosing for both the treatment of mild to moderately active UC and for maintenance of remission in quiescent UC. The failure to demonstrate a superior rate of adherence to OD dosing may be due to the high rate of adherence observed in the clinical trials environment. Future research should assess the value of OD dosing in community settings.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.014 | 0.029 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.022 | 0.027 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".