The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Double‐blind comparison of an oral Escherichia coli preparation and mesalazine in maintaining remission of ulcerative colitis
Abstract
Background: Aminosalicylates are used as standard treatment for maintaining remission in ulcerative colitis. As yet, there is no other existing alternative with proven efficacy. In light of the hypothesis that the intestinal environment may contribute to the pathophysiology of ulcerative colitis, a trial was conducted to test the effects of probiotic treatment with an oral preparation of non‐pathogenic E. coli. Methods: A total of 120 patients with inactive ulcerative colitis were included in a double‐blind, double‐dummy study comparing mesalazine 500 mg t.d.s. to an oral preparation of viable E. coli strain Nissle (Serotype 06: K5: H1) for 12 weeks with regard to their efficacy in preventing a relapse of the disease. Study objectives were to assess the equivalence of the clinical activity index (CAI) under the two treatment modalities and to compare relapse rates, relapse‐free times and global assessment. Results: The start and end scores of the CAI demonstrated no significant difference (P=0.12) between the two treatment groups. Relapse rates were 11.3% under mesalazine and 16.0% under E. coli Nissle 1917 (N.S.). Life table analysis showed a relapse‐free time of 103±4 days for mesalazine and 106±5 days for E. coli Nissle 1917 (N.S.). Global assessment was similar for both groups. Tolerability to the treatment was excellent and did not differ. No serious adverse events were reported. Conclusions: From the results of this preliminary study, probiotic treatment appears to offer another option for maintenance therapy of ulcerative colitis. Additional support is provided for the hypothesis of a pathophysiological role for the intestinal environment in ulcerative colitis.
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
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.
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
Schuirmann, D. J. (1987) · Journal of Pharmacokinetics and Biopharmaceutics · doi:10.1007/bf01068419 · Cited by 2,696
Cited by
Dignass, A., Lindsay, J. O., Sturm, A., Windsor, A., Colombel, J.-F., Allez, M., D'Haens, G., D'Hoore, A., Mantzaris, G., Novacek, G., et al. (2012) · Journal of Crohn's and Colitis · doi:10.1016/j.crohns.2012.09.002 · Cited by 1,548
Ott, S. J., Musfeldt, M., Wenderoth, D. F., Hampe, J., Brant, O., Fölsch, U. R., Timmis, K. N., & Schreiber, S. (2004) · Gut · doi:10.1136/gut.2003.025403 · Cited by 1,311
Kruis, W., Frič, P., Pokrotnieks, J., Lukáš, M., Fixa, B., Kaščák, M., Kamm, M. A., Weismueller, J., Beglinger, C., Stolte, M., et al. (2004) · Gut · doi:10.1136/gut.2003.037747 · Cited by 1,285
Self-citationHarbord, M., Eliakim, R., Bettenworth, D., Karmiris, K., Katsanos, K., Kopylov, U., Kucharzik, T., Molnár, T., Raine, T., Sebastian, S., et al. (2017) · Journal of Crohn's and Colitis · doi:10.1093/ecco-jcc/jjx009 · Cited by 1,180
Prophylaxis of pouchitis onset with probiotic therapy: a double-blind, placebo-controlled trial
Gionchetti, P., Rizzello, F., Helwig, U., Venturi, A., Lammers, K. M., Brigidi, P., Vitali, B., Poggioli, G., Miglioli, M., & Campieri, M. (2003) · Gastroenterology · doi:10.1016/s0016-5085(03)00171-9 · Cited by 1,147
Metadata
- Authors
- KRUIS, W., SCHÜTZ, E., FRIC, P., FIXA, B., JUDMAIER, G., & STOLTE, M.
- Venue
- Alimentary Pharmacology & Therapeutics
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 1997-10
- Volume
- 11
- Issue
- 5
- Pages
- 853-858
- ISSN
- 0269-2813 (ISSN-L)
- 1365-2036
- OpenAlex
- W1971737706
- Cited by
- 775
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 6.75
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
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: Double‐blind comparison of an oral Escherichia coli preparation and mesalazine in maintaining remission of ulcerative colitis. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1046/j.1365-2036.1997.00225.x
- The paper
- KRUIS, W., SCHÜTZ, E., FRIC, P., FIXA, B., JUDMAIER, G., & STOLTE, M. (1997). Double‐blind comparison of an oral Escherichia coli preparation and mesalazine in maintaining remission of ulcerative colitis. Alimentary Pharmacology & Therapeutics. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2036.1997.00225.x
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.