Glucocorticosteroid Therapy in Inflammatory Bowel Disease: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: The use of glucocorticosteroids to treat both Crohn's disease (CD) and ulcerative colitis (UC) is widespread, but no systematic review and meta-analysis has examined the issue of efficacy of these agents in its entirety. METHODS: MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane central register of controlled trials were searched (through December 2010). Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) recruiting adults with active or quiescent CD comparing standard glucocorticosteroids or budesonide with placebo or each other, or comparing standard glucocorticosteroids with placebo in active UC, were eligible. Dichotomous data were extracted to obtain relative risk (RR) of failure to achieve remission in active disease, and RR of relapse of activity in quiescent disease, with a 95% confidence interval (CI). Adverse events data were extracted where reported. RESULTS: The search identified 3,061 citations, and 20 trials were eligible. Only one trial was at low risk of bias. Standard glucocorticosteroids were superior to placebo for UC remission (RR of no remission=0.65; 95% CI 0.45-0.93). Both trials of standard glucocorticosteroids in CD remission reported a statistically significant effect, but because of heterogeneity between studies, the overall effect was not significant (RR=0.46; 95% CI 0.17-1.28). Budesonide was superior to placebo for CD remission (RR=0.73; 95% CI 0.63-0.84), but not in preventing CD relapse (RR=0.93; 95% CI 0.83-1.04). Standard glucocorticosteroids were superior to budesonide for CD remission (RR=0.82; 95% CI 0.68-0.98), but glucocorticosteroid-related adverse events were commoner (RR=1.64; 95% CI 1.34-2.00). CONCLUSIONS: Standard glucocorticosteroids are probably effective in inducing remission in UC, and may be of benefit in CD. Budesonide induces remission in active CD, but is less effective than standard glucocorticosteroids, and is of no benefit in preventing CD relapse.
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 | 0.016 | 0.039 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.027 | 0.036 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.009 | 0.012 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".