Efficacy of 5-Aminosalicylates in Ulcerative Colitis: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: The efficacy of 5-aminosalicylic acids (5-ASAs) in ulcerative colitis (UC) has been studied previously in meta-analyses. However, several randomized controlled trials (RCTs) have been published recently, and no previous meta-analysis has studied the effect of 5-ASA dosage used. METHODS: MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane central register of controlled trials were searched (through December 2010). Eligible trials recruited adults with active or quiescent UC, comparing different doses of 5-ASAs with themselves or placebo. Dichotomous data were pooled to obtain relative risk (RR) of failure to achieve remission in active UC, and RR of relapse of disease activity in quiescent UC, with a 95% confidence interval (CI). The number needed to treat (NNT) was calculated from the reciprocal of the risk difference. RESULTS: The search identified 3,061 citations, and 37 RCTs were eligible. Of these, 11 compared 5-ASA with placebo in active UC remission, with the RR of no remission with 5-ASAs of 0.79 (95% CI 0.73-0.85; NNT=6). Doses of ≥ 2.0 g/day were more effective than <2.0 g/day for remission (RR=0.91; 95% CI 0.85-0.98). There were 11 RCTs comparing 5-ASAs with placebo in preventing relapse of quiescent UC, with the RR of relapse of 0.65 (95% CI 0.55-0.76; NNT=4). Doses of ≥ 2.0 g/day appeared more effective than <2.0 g/day for preventing relapse (RR=0.79; 95% CI 0.64-0.97). CONCLUSIONS: 5-ASAs are highly effective for inducing remission and preventing relapse in UC. Evidence suggests that doses of ≥ 2.0 g/day have greater efficacy, although doses >2.5 g/day do not appear to lead to higher remission rates.
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 | 0.013 | 0.030 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.023 | 0.036 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.009 |
| 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) | 0.004 | 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".