Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 375

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 31 of the 31 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

First- and Second-Line Pharmacotherapies for Patients With Moderate to Severely Active Ulcerative Colitis: An Updated Network Meta-Analysis

Open access
Singh, Siddharth, Murad, Mohammad Hassan, Fumery, Mathurin, Dulai, Parambir S., Sandborn, William J.·2020·Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology

Abstract

Background & Aims: We compared the efficacy and safety of different first-line (biologic-naïve) and second-line (prior exposure to tumor necrosis factor [TNF] antagonists) agents for treatment of moderate to severely active ulcerative colitis in a systematic review and network meta-analysis. Methods: We searched publication databases through September 30, 2019 for randomized trials of adults with moderate to severe ulcerative colitis treated with TNF antagonists, vedolizumab, tofacitinib, or ustekinumab, as first-line or second-line agents, compared with placebo or another active agent. Efficacy outcomes were induction and maintenance of remission and endoscopic improvement; safety outcomes were serious adverse events and infections. We performed fixed-effects network meta-analysis using frequentist approach, and calculated odds ratios (ORs) and 95% CI values. Agents were ranked using surface under the cumulative ranking (SUCRA) probabilities. Results: In biologic-naïve patients, infliximab was ranked highest for induction of clinical remission (OR vs placebo, 4.07; 95% CI, 2.67–6.21; SUCRA,0.95) and endoscopic improvement (SUCRA, 0.95) (moderate confidence in estimates [CE]). In patients with prior exposure to TNF antagonists, ustekinumab (SUCRA,0.87) and tofacitinib (SUCRA,0.87) were ranked highest for induction of clinical remission and were superior to vedolizumab (OR vs ustekinumab, 5.99; 95% CI, 1.13–31.76 and OR vs tofacitinib, 6.18; 95% CI, 1.003–8.00; moderate CE) and adalimumab (OR vs ustekinumab, 10.71; 95% CI, 2.01–57.20 and OR vs tofacitinib, 11.05; 95% CI, 1.79–68.41; moderate CE). Vedolizumab had lowest risk of infections (SUCRA, 0.81), followed by ustekinumab (SUCRA, 0.63) in maintenance trials. Conclusions: In a systematic review and network meta-analysis, we found infliximab to be ranked highest in biologic-naïve patients, and ustekinumab and tofacitinib were ranked highest in patients with prior exposure to TNF antagonists, for induction of remission and endoscopic improvement in patients with moderate to severe ulcerative colitis. More trials of direct comparisons are needed to inform clinical decision-making with greater confidence.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.cgh.2020.01.008

Cites

31 of 31 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 31 references

Cited by

See all 375

Metadata

Authors
Singh, S., Murad, M. H., Fumery, M., Dulai, P. S., & Sandborn, W. J.
Venue
Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2020-09
Volume
18
Issue
10
Pages
2179-2191.e6
ISSN
1542-3565 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W3000124921
Cited by
375
References
31
FWCI
29.44
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
green

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: First- and Second-Line Pharmacotherapies for Patients With Moderate to Severely Active Ulcerative Colitis: An Updated Network Meta-Analysis. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1016/j.cgh.2020.01.008
The paper
Singh, S., Murad, M. H., Fumery, M., Dulai, P. S., & Sandborn, W. J. (2020). First- and Second-Line Pharmacotherapies for Patients With Moderate to Severely Active Ulcerative Colitis: An Updated Network Meta-Analysis. Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cgh.2020.01.008

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.