Interventions for Treating Microscopic Colitis: A Cochrane Inflammatory Bowel Disease and Functional Bowel Disorders Review Group Systematic Review of Randomized Trials
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To conduct a systematic review to determine effective treatments for patients with collagenous colitis or lymphocytic colitis, the two subtypes of microscopic colitis. METHODS: Relevant papers were identified via the MEDLINE, PUBMED, and Cochrane Collaboration databases, manual searches of the references of identified papers and review papers on microscopic colitis, as well as searches of abstracts from major gastroenterological meetings. RESULTS: All studies assessing treatment of microscopic colitis had relatively small sample sizes. A total of 10 randomized trials included patients with collagenous colitis. Budesonide was studied for induction of response in three trials and for maintenance of response in two trials. The pooled odds ratio for inducing clinical response with budesonide was 12.32 (95% confidence interval, CI 5.53-27.46), and for maintaining clinical response was 8.82 (95% CI 3.19-24.37), with a number needed to treat (NNT) of 2 patients for each outcome. Budesonide also induced and maintained histological response and was well tolerated. Bismuth subsalicylate, prednisolone, and mesalamine with or without cholestyramine may be effective, whereas Boswellia serrata extract and probiotics were ineffective for treating collagenous colitis. Three randomized trials included patients with lymphocytic colitis. Budesonide was shown in one study to be effective for inducing clinical response (OR 9.00; 95% CI 1.98-40.93), with an NNT of three patients. Budesonide also induced histological response and was well tolerated. Bismuth subsalicylate and mesalamine with or without cholestyramine may be effective for treating lymphocytic colitis. No trials assessed maintenance of response in patients with lymphocytic colitis. CONCLUSIONS: Budesonide is effective and well tolerated for inducing and maintaining clinical and histological responses in patients with collagenous colitis, and for inducing clinical and histological responses in patients with lymphocytic colitis. Determining the magnitude of benefit is limited by the small sample sizes of the studies. The evidence for other agents, including bismuth subsalicylate, prednisolone, B. serrata extract, probiotics, and mesalamine with or without cholestyramine is weaker. It is not clear that any of these agents induce or maintain actual remission of collagenous or lymphocytic colitis, as opposed to clinical or histological response.
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
Direct model labels (unvalidated)
Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.
| Model arm | Categories | Study design | Confidence |
|---|---|---|---|
| gemma | no category Domain: not available · Genre: Review About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Systematic review | low |
| gpt | no category Domain: not available · Genre: Review About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Systematic review | medium |
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 | 0.015 | 0.045 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.017 | 0.012 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.013 | 0.010 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.001 |
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, unvalidatedLabeled directly by 2 models reading the full record.
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".