Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 306

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Randomized, double‐blind, placebo‐controlled trial of oral aloe vera gel for active ulcerative colitis

Langmead, L., Feakins, R. M., Goldthorpe, S., Holt, H., Tsironi, E., De Silva, A., Jewell, D. P., Rampton, D. S.·2004·Alimentary Pharmacology & Therapeutics

Abstract

Summary: Background : The herbal preparation, aloe vera, has been claimed to have anti‐inflammatory effects and, despite a lack of evidence of its therapeutic efficacy, is widely used by patients with inflammatory bowel disease. Aim : To perform a double‐blind, randomized, placebo‐controlled trial of the efficacy and safety of aloe vera gel for the treatment of mildly to moderately active ulcerative colitis. Methods : Forty‐four evaluable hospital out‐patients were randomly given oral aloe vera gel or placebo, 100 mL twice daily for 4 weeks, in a 2 : 1 ratio. The primary outcome measures were clinical remission (Simple Clinical Colitis Activity Index ≤ 2), sigmoidoscopic remission (Baron score ≤ 1) and histological remission (Saverymuttu score ≤ 1). Secondary outcome measures included changes in the Simple Clinical Colitis Activity Index (improvement was defined as a decrease of ≥ 3 points; response was defined as remission or improvement), Baron score, histology score, haemoglobin, platelet count, erythrocyte sedimentation rate, C‐reactive protein and albumin. Results : Clinical remission, improvement and response occurred in nine (30%), 11 (37%) and 14 (47%), respectively, of 30 patients given aloe vera, compared with one (7%) [P = 0.09; odds ratio, 5.6 (0.6–49)], one (7%) [P = 0.06; odds ratio, 7.5 (0.9–66)] and two (14%) [P < 0.05; odds ratio, 5.3 (1.0–27)], respectively, of 14 patients taking placebo. The Simple Clinical Colitis Activity Index and histological scores decreased significantly during treatment with aloe vera (P = 0.01 and P = 0.03, respectively), but not with placebo. Sigmoidoscopic scores and laboratory variables showed no significant differences between aloe vera and placebo. Adverse events were minor and similar in both groups of patients. Conclusion : Oral aloe vera taken for 4 weeks produced a clinical response more often than placebo; it also reduced the histological disease activity and appeared to be safe. Further evaluation of the therapeutic potential of aloe vera gel in inflammatory bowel disease is needed.

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 · 10.1111/j.1365-2036.2004.01902.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 306

Metadata

Authors
Langmead, L., Feakins, R. M., Goldthorpe, S., Holt, H., Tsironi, E., De Silva, A., Jewell, D. P., & Rampton, D. S.
Venue
Alimentary Pharmacology & Therapeutics
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2004-03-18
Volume
19
Issue
7
Pages
739-747
ISSN
  • 0269-2813 (ISSN-L)
  • 1365-2036
OpenAlex
W2036135384
Cited by
306
References
1
FWCI
4.55
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: Randomized, double‐blind, placebo‐controlled trial of oral aloe vera gel for active ulcerative colitis. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1111/j.1365-2036.2004.01902.x
The paper
Langmead, L., Feakins, R. M., Goldthorpe, S., Holt, H., Tsironi, E., De Silva, A., Jewell, D. P., & Rampton, D. S. (2004). Randomized, double‐blind, placebo‐controlled trial of oral aloe vera gel for active ulcerative colitis. Alimentary Pharmacology & Therapeutics. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2036.2004.01902.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.