Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 169

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Endoscopic improvement of mucosal lesions in patients with moderate to severe ileocolonic Crohn's disease following treatment with certolizumab pegol

Open access
Hébuterne, Xavier, Lémann, Marc, Bouhnik, Yoram, Dewit, Olivier, Dupas, Jean-Louis, Mross, Michael, D'Haens, Geert, Mitchev, Krassimir, Ernault, Étienne, Vermeire, Séverine, Brixi-Benmansour, Hedia, Moreels, Tom G, Mary, Jean-Yves, Marteau, Philippe, Colombel, Jean-Frédéric·2013·Gut

Abstract

Objective: To evaluate the efficacy of certolizumab pegol (CZP) in improving endoscopic lesions in patients with active ileocolonic Crohn's disease (CD). Methods: This phase IIIB multicentre open-label clinical trial enrolled 89 adult patients with active endoscopic disease (ulceration in ≥2 intestinal segments with a Crohn's Disease Endoscopic Index of Severity (CDEIS) score ≥8 points). Patients received subcutaneous CZP 400 mg at weeks 0, 2 and 4 and every 4 weeks up to week 52. Endoscopic evaluations were performed at weeks 0, 10 and 54. The primary outcome was mean change in CDEIS score at week 10; secondary outcome measures included endoscopic response (decrease in CDEIS score >5 points), remission (CDEIS score <6), complete remission (CDEIS score <3) and mucosal healing (no ulcer) at weeks 10 and 54. Results: In the intention-to-treat population (n=89) the mean±SD CDEIS score was 14.5±5.3 at baseline; the mean decrease in CDEIS score at week 10 was 5.7 (95% CI 4.6 to 6.8, p<0.0001). Rates of endoscopic response, endoscopic remission, complete endoscopic remission and mucosal healing at week 10 were 54%, 37%, 10% and 4%, respectively. At week 54 the corresponding rates were 49%, 27%, 14% and 8%, respectively. The safety profile was consistent with that of previous CZP trials. Conclusions: Following CZP treatment in patients with active CD, endoscopic lesions were improved as shown by the decrease in mean CDEIS score and by endoscopic response and remission rates. These benefits were achieved as early as week 10 and were generally maintained through week 54. Clinical Trial Registration Number: NCT00297648.

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 · 10.1136/gutjnl-2012-302262

Cites

3 of 3 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 3 references

Cited by

See all 169

Metadata

Authors
Hébuterne, X., Lémann, M., Bouhnik, Y., Dewit, O., Dupas, J.-L., Mross, M., D'Haens, G., Mitchev, K., Ernault, É., Vermeire, S., Brixi-Benmansour, H., Moreels, T. G., Mary, J.-Y., Marteau, P., & Colombel, J.-F.
Venue
Gut
Publisher
BMJ
Published
2012-04-23
Volume
62
Issue
2
Pages
201-208
ISSN
  • 0017-5749 (ISSN-L)
  • 1468-3288
OpenAlex
W2123571431
Cited by
169
References
3
FWCI
13.11
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
hybrid

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: Endoscopic improvement of mucosal lesions in patients with moderate to severe ileocolonic Crohn's disease following treatment with certolizumab pegol. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1136/gutjnl-2012-302262
The paper
Hébuterne, X., Lémann, M., Bouhnik, Y., Dewit, O., Dupas, J.-L., Mross, M., D'Haens, G., Mitchev, K., Ernault, É., Vermeire, S., Brixi-Benmansour, H., Moreels, T. G., Mary, J.-Y., Marteau, P., & Colombel, J.-F. (2013). Endoscopic improvement of mucosal lesions in patients with moderate to severe ileocolonic Crohn's disease following treatment with certolizumab pegol. Gut. https://doi.org/10.1136/gutjnl-2012-302262

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.