Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 775

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

KRUIS, W., SCHÜTZ, E., FRIC, P., FIXA, B., JUDMAIER, G., STOLTE, M.·1997·Alimentary Pharmacology & Therapeutics

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.

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

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1046/j.1365-2036.1997.00225.x

Cites

1 of 1 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

Cited by

See all 775

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.