MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2059019883 · doi:10.1038/ajg.2011.72

Antibiotic Therapy in Inflammatory Bowel Disease: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

2011· review· en· W2059019883 on OpenAlexaff
Khurram J Khan, Thomas Ullman, Alexander C. Ford, María T. Abreu, Amir Abadir, John K. Marshall, Nicholas J. Talley, Paul Moayyedi

Bibliographic record

VenueThe American Journal of Gastroenterology · 2011
Typereview
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicInflammatory Bowel Disease
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University Medical Centre
FundersAmerican College of Gastroenterology
KeywordsMedicineInflammatory bowel diseaseMeta-analysisAntibiotic therapyAntibioticsIntensive care medicineDiseaseInflammatory Bowel DiseasesSystematic reviewMEDLINEInternal medicineMicrobiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The etiology of inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) is unknown but may relate to an unidentified bacterial pathogen or an immunological reaction to gut microbiota. Antibiotics have therefore been proposed as a therapy for Crohn's disease (CD) and ulcerative colitis (UC) to induce remission in active disease to prevent relapse. Current data are conflicting and we therefore conducted a systematic review of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating antibiotics in IBD. Only parallel group RCTs were considered eligible. Studies with adult patients receiving any dose of therapy for at least 7 days and up to 16 weeks for active disease, or at least 6 months of follow-up for preventing relapse in quiescent disease were analyzed. We included any antibiotics alone or in combination using predefined definitions of remission and relapse. Two reviewers independently assessed eligibility and extracted data. The primary outcome was remission or relapse using an intention-to-treat methodology. The data were summarized using relative risk (RR) and pooled using a random effects model. For active CD, there were 10 RCTs involving 1,160 patients. There was a statistically significant effect of antibiotics being superior to placebo (RR of active CD not in remission=0.85; 95% confidence interval (CI)=0.73-0.99, P=0.03). There was moderate heterogeneity between results (I(2)=48%) and a diverse number of antibiotics were tested (anti-tuberculosis therapy, macrolides, fluroquinolones, 5-nitroimidazoles, and rifaximin) either alone or in combination. Rifamycin derivatives either alone or in combination with other antibiotics appeared to have a significant effect at inducing remission in active CD. In perianal CD fistula there were three trials evaluating 123 patients using either ciprofloxacin or metronidazole. There was a statistically significant effect in reducing fistula drainage (RR=0.8; 95% CI=0.66-0.98) with no heterogeneity (I(2)=0%) and an number needed to treat 5 (95% CI=3-20). For quiescent CD, there were 3 RCTs involving 186 patients treated with different antibiotics combinations (all including antimycobacterials) vs. placebo. There was a statistically significant effect in favor of antibiotics vs. placebo (RR of relapse=0.62; 95% CI=0.46-0.84), with no heterogeneity (I(2)=0%). In active UC, there were 9 RCTs with 662 patients and there was a statistically significant benefit for antibiotics inducing remission (RR of UC not in remission=0.64; 95% CI=0.43-0.96). There was moderate heterogeneity (I(2)=69%) and antibiotics used were all different single or combination drugs. Antibiotic therapy may induce remission in active CD and UC, although the diverse number of antibiotics tested means the data are difficult to interpret. This systematic review is a mandate for further trials of antibiotic therapy in IBD.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.011
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.027
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.023
Threshold uncertainty score0.059

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0110.027
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0230.033
Bibliometrics0.0070.010
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.025
GPT teacher head0.291
Teacher spread0.266 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designMeta-analysis
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations565
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe American Journal of GastroenterologySame topicInflammatory Bowel DiseaseFrench-language works237,207