Quality of reporting inflammatory bowel disease randomised controlled trials: a systematic review.

OBJECTIVE: Our objective was to perform a systemic evaluation of the risk of bias in randomised controlled trial (RCT) reports published on inflammatory bowel disease (IBD). DESIGN: We assessed the risk of bias using the Cochrane tool, as indicators of poor methodology or subsequently poor reporting. We systematically selected, with dual independent judgements, all studies published on IBD with no time limits and assessed the methodological quality of included studies again using independent dual ratings. RESULTS: 563 full texts were included after selection and review. No abstract publications were free of any source of bias. Full-text publications still fared badly, as only 103 full-text papers exhibited a low risk of bias in all reporting domains when excluding blinding. RCTs published in journals with higher impact factor (IF) were associated with an overall reduced rate of being at high risk. However, only 6% of full RCT publications in journals with an IF greater than 10, published in the past 5 years, were free of bias.The trend over time is towards improved reporting in all areas. Trials published by larger author teams, in full-text form and by industry and public sponsorship were positively correlated with a lower risk of bias. Only allocation concealment showed a statistically significant improvement with time (p=0.037). CONCLUSION: These findings are consistent with those of other specialties in the literature. While this unclear risk of bias may represent poor reporting of methods instead of poor methodological quality, it leaves readers and future secondary researchers with significant questions regarding such key issues.

Maintaining remission in Crohn's disease post surgery: what can we learn from Cochrane?

Surgery is a vital pillar in the management of Crohn's disease and medical options for prevention of recurrence after surgery are a key consideration. The main classes of effective induction therapies have very different efficacy data for maintenance and this is more pronounced in the postsurgical setting. In this review article, the up-to-date Cochrane reviews on the topic are presented, including a network meta-analysis. The Cochrane evidence shows a high relapse rate in the first 5 years after surgery with placebo or no treatment. The reviews demonstrate that 5-aminosalicylic acid (5-ASA) agents are probably more effective than placebo on pairwise and network meta-analysis, with moderate certainty evidence of a number needed to treat (NNT) of 13. The Cochrane evidence demonstrates that adalimumab may be more effective than placebo on pairwise and network meta-analysis, with low certainty evidence of an NNT of 2. Thiopurine analogues may be effective on pairwise analysis, but may not be effective on network meta-analysis. There was no evidence to support the use of any other agent but these findings are of low and very low certainty. It is proposed that clinicians should consider adalimumab, 5-ASA and thiopurine analogue agents based on the findings of the Cochrane synthesis. The use of the evidence, including the Grading of Recomendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluations (GRADE) certainty and magnitude of effect data, can support discussions with patients. Future research is needed to consider other therapies that are effective in medically induced maintenance given the low certainty of evidence limiting conclusions, either supporting or refuting their use.

Prepublication abstract-only reports compared with full-text manuscripts for randomised controlled trials in inflammatory bowel disease: a systematic review.

INTRODUCTION: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of key therapies in inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) are often presented and available as abstracts for significant periods of time prior to full publication, often being employed to make strategic and clinical prescribing decisions. We compared the concordance of prepublication abstract-only reports and their respective full-text manuscripts. METHODS: Pairs of full-text manuscripts and their respective prepublication abstract-only reports for the same RCT outcomes, at the same time point of analysis were included. The RCTs were on treatments for IBD with full-text manuscripts published between 2010 and 2023. RESULTS: We found 77 pairs of full-text manuscripts and their prepublication abstract-only reports. There were significant mismatches in the reporting of stated planned outcomes (65/77 matched, p<0.001) and primary outcomes reported in their results sections (67/77, p<0.001); trial registrations (34/65, p<0.001); the number of randomised participants (49/77, p=0.18); participants reaching end of study (21/71, p<0.001) and primary outcome data (40/73, p<0.001). Authors conclusions matched (75/77, p=0.157). Authors did not provide explicit or implied justifications for the absence or non-concordance for any of the above items. CONCLUSIONS: Abstract-only reports have consistent issues with both limited reporting of key information and significant differences in data when compared with their later full-text publications. These are not related to further recruitment of patients or word count limitations and are never explained. As abstracts are often used in guidelines, reviews and stakeholder decision-making on prescribing, caution in their use is strongly suggested. Further work is needed to enhance minimum reporting standards in abstract-only works and ensure consistency with final published papers.

Prebiotics for induction and maintenance of remission in ulcerative colitis.

BACKGROUND: People affected by ulcerative colitis (UC) are interested in dietary therapies as treatments that can improve their health and quality of life. Prebiotics are a category of food ingredients theorised to have health benefits for the gastrointestinal system through their effect on the growth and activity of intestinal bacteria and probiotics. OBJECTIVES: To assess the efficacy and safety of prebiotics for the induction and maintenance of remission in people with active UC. SEARCH METHODS: We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, ClinicalTrials.gov, and WHO ICTRP on 24 June 2023. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) on people with UC. We considered any type of standalone or combination prebiotic intervention, except those prebiotics combined with probiotics (known as synbiotics), compared to any control intervention. We considered interventions of any dose and duration. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We followed standard Cochrane methodology. MAIN RESULTS: We included 9 RCTs involving a total of 445 participants. Study duration ranged from 14 days to 2 to 3 months for induction and 1 to 6 months for maintenance of remission. All studies were on adults. Five studies were on people with mild to moderate active disease, three in remission or mild activity, and one did not mention. We judged only one study as at low risk of bias in all areas. Two studies compared prebiotics with placebo for induction of remission. We cannot draw any conclusions about clinical remission (70% versus 67%; risk ratio (RR) 1.05, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.57 to 1.94); clinical improvement (mean Rachmilewitz score on day 14 of 4.1 versus 4.5; mean difference (MD) -0.40, 95% CI -2.67 to 1.87); faecal calprotectin levels (mean faecal calprotectin on day 14 of 1211 µg/mL versus 3740 µg/mL; MD -2529.00, 95% CI -6925.38 to 1867.38); interleukin-8 (IL-8) levels (mean IL-8 on day 7 of 2.9 pg/mL versus 5.0 pg/mL; MD -2.10, 95% CI -4.93 to 0.73); prostaglandin E2 (PGE-2) levels (mean PGE-2 on day 7 of 7.1 ng/mL versus 11.5 ng/mL; MD -4.40, 95% CI -20.25 to 11.45); or withdrawals due to adverse events (21% versus 8%; RR 2.73, 95% CI 0.51 to 14.55). All evidence was of very low certainty. No other outcomes were reported. Two studies compared inulin and oligofructose 15 g with inulin and oligofructose 7.5 g for induction of remission. We cannot draw any conclusions about clinical remission (53% versus 12.5%; RR 4.27, 95% CI 1.07 to 16.96); clinical improvement (67% versus 25%; RR 2.67, 95% CI 1.06 to 6.70); total adverse events (53.5% versus 31%; RR 1.71, 95% CI 0.72 to 4.06); or withdrawals due to adverse events (13% versus 25%; RR 0.53, 95% CI 0.11 to 2.50). All evidence was of very low certainty. No other outcomes were reported. One study compared prebiotics and anti-inflammatory therapy with anti-inflammatory therapy alone for induction of remission. We cannot draw any conclusions about clinical improvement (mean Lichtiger score at 4 weeks of 6.2 versus 10.3; MD -4.10, 95% CI -8.14 to -0.06) or serum C-reactive protein (CRP) levels (mean CRP levels at 4 weeks 0.55 ng/mL versus 0.50 ng/mL; MD 0.05, 95% CI -0.37 to 0.47). All evidence was of very low certainty. No other outcomes were reported. Three studies compared prebiotics with placebo for maintenance of remission. There may be no difference between groups in rate of clinical relapse (44% versus 33%; RR 1.36, 95% CI 0.79 to 2.31), and prebiotics may lead to more total adverse events than placebo (77% versus 46%; RR 1.68, 95% CI 1.18 to 2.40). The evidence was of low certainty. We cannot draw any conclusions about clinical improvement (mean partial Mayo score at day 60 of 0.428 versus 1.625; MD -1.20, 95% CI -2.17 to -0.22); faecal calprotectin levels (mean faecal calprotectin level at day 60 of 214 µg/mL versus 304 µg/mL; MD -89.79, 95% CI -221.30 to 41.72); quality of life (mean Inflammatory Bowel Disease Questionnaire (IBDQ) score at day 60 of 193.5 versus 188.0; MD 5.50, 95% CI -8.94 to 19.94); or withdrawals due to adverse events (28.5% versus 11%; RR 2.57, 95% CI 1.15 to 5.73). The evidence for these outcomes was of very low certainty. No other outcomes were reported. One study compared prebiotics with synbiotics for maintenance of remission. We cannot draw any conclusions about quality of life (mean IBDQ score at 4 weeks 182.4 versus 176.1; MD 6.30, 95% CI -6.61 to 19.21) or withdrawals due to adverse events (23% versus 20%; RR 1.13, 95% CI 0.48 to 2.62). All evidence was of very low certainty. No other outcomes were reported. One study compared prebiotics with probiotics for maintenance of remission. We cannot draw any conclusions about quality of life (mean IBDQ score at 4 weeks 182.4 versus 168.6; MD 13.60, 95% CI 1.22 to 25.98) or withdrawals due to adverse events (22.5% versus 22.5%; RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.44 to 2.26). All evidence was of very low certainty. No other outcomes were reported. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There may be no difference in occurrence of clinical relapse when adjuvant treatment with prebiotics is compared with adjuvant treatment with placebo for maintenance of remission in UC. Adjuvant treatment with prebiotics may result in more total adverse events when compared to adjuvant treatment with placebo for maintenance of remission. We could draw no conclusions for any of the other outcomes in this comparison due to the very low certainty of the evidence. The evidence for all other comparisons and outcomes was also of very low certainty, precluding any conclusions. It is difficult to make any clear recommendations for future research based on the findings of this review given the clinical and methodological heterogeneity among studies. It is recommended that a consensus is reached on these issues prior to any further research.

A scoping review of artificial intelligence in medical education: BEME Guide No. 84.

BACKGROUND: Artificial Intelligence (AI) is rapidly transforming healthcare, and there is a critical need for a nuanced understanding of how AI is reshaping teaching, learning, and educational practice in medical education. This review aimed to map the literature regarding AI applications in medical education, core areas of findings, potential candidates for formal systematic review and gaps for future research. METHODS: This rapid scoping review, conducted over 16 weeks, employed Arksey and O'Malley's framework and adhered to STORIES and BEME guidelines. A systematic and comprehensive search across PubMed/MEDLINE, EMBASE, and MedEdPublish was conducted without date or language restrictions. Publications included in the review spanned undergraduate, graduate, and continuing medical education, encompassing both original studies and perspective pieces. Data were charted by multiple author pairs and synthesized into various thematic maps and charts, ensuring a broad and detailed representation of the current landscape. RESULTS: The review synthesized 278 publications, with a majority (68%) from North American and European regions. The studies covered diverse AI applications in medical education, such as AI for admissions, teaching, assessment, and clinical reasoning. The review highlighted AI's varied roles, from augmenting traditional educational methods to introducing innovative practices, and underscores the urgent need for ethical guidelines in AI's application in medical education. CONCLUSION: The current literature has been charted. The findings underscore the need for ongoing research to explore uncharted areas and address potential risks associated with AI use in medical education. This work serves as a foundational resource for educators, policymakers, and researchers in navigating AI's evolving role in medical education. A framework to support future high utility reporting is proposed, the FACETS framework.

Infliximab for maintenance of medically-induced remission in Crohn's disease.

BACKGROUND: Infliximab is a monoclonal antibody that binds and neutralises tumour necrosis factor-alpha (TNF-α) which is present in high levels in the blood serum, mucosa and stool of patients with Crohn's disease. OBJECTIVES: To determine the efficacy and safety of infliximab for maintaining remission in patients with Crohn's disease. SEARCH METHODS: On 31 August, 2021 and 23 June, 2023, we searched CENTRAL, Embase, MEDLINE, ClinicalTrials.gov, and WHO ICTRP. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in which infliximab was compared to placebo or another active comparator for maintenance, remission, or response in patients with Crohn's disease. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Pairs of review authors independently selected studies and conducted data extraction and risk of bias assessment. We expressed outcomes as risk ratios and mean differences with 95% confidence intervals. We assessed the certainty of the evidence using GRADE. Our primary outcome was clinical relapse. Secondary outcomes were loss of clinical response, endoscopic relapse, and withdrawal due to serious and adverse events. MAIN RESULTS: Nine RCTs with 1257 participants were included. They were conducted between 1999 and 2022; seven RCTs included biologically-naive patients, and the remaining two included a mix of naive/not naive patients. Three studies included patients in clinical remission, five included patients with a mix of activity scores, and one study included biologic responders with active disease at baseline. All studies allowed some form of concomitant medication during their duration. One study exclusively included patients with fistulating disease. The age of the participants ranged from 18 to 69 years old. All but one single-centre RCT were multicentre RCTs. Four studies were funded by pharmaceutical companies, two had a mix of commercial and public funding, and two had public funding. Infliximab is probably superior to placebo in preventing clinical relapse in patients who have mixed levels of clinical disease activity at baseline, and are not naive to biologics (56% vs 75%, RR 0.73, 95% CI 0.63 to 0.84, NNTB = 5, moderate-certainty evidence). We cannot draw any conclusions on loss of clinical response (RR 0.59, 95% CI 0.37 to 0.96), withdrawals due to adverse events (RR 0.66, 95% CI 0.37 to 1.19), or serious adverse events (RR 0.60, 95% CI 0.36 to 1.00) because the evidence is very low certainty. Infliximab combined with purine analogues is probably superior to purine analogues for clinical relapse (12% vs 59%, RR 0.20, 95% CI 0.10 to 0.42, NNTB = 2, moderate-certainty evidence), for patients in remission, and who are not naive to biologics. We cannot draw any conclusions on withdrawals due to adverse events (RR 0.47, 95% CI 0.15 to 1.49), and serious adverse events (RR 1.19, 95% CI 0.54 to 2.64) because the evidence is very low certainty. We cannot draw any conclusions about the effects of infliximab on serious adverse events compared to purine analogues (RR 0.79, 95% CI 0.37 to 1.68) for a population in remission at baseline because the evidence is very low certainty. There was no evidence available for the outcomes of clinical relapse, loss of clinical response, and withdrawal due to adverse events. Infliximab may be equivalent to biosimilar for clinical relapse (47% vs 40% RR 1.18, 95% CI 0.82 to 1.69), and it may be slightly less effective in averting loss of clinical response (49% vs 32%, RR 1.50, 95% CI 1.01 to 2.23, low-certainty evidence), for a population with mixed/low disease activity at baseline. Infliximab may be less effective than biosimilar in averting withdrawals due to adverse events (27% vs 0%, RR 20.73, 95% CI 2.86 to 150.33, low-certainty evidence). Infliximab may be equivalent to biosimilar for serious adverse events (10% vs 10%, RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.39 to 2.50, low-certainty evidence). We cannot draw any conclusions on the effects of subcutaneous biosimilar compared with intravenous biosimilar on clinical relapse (RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.65 to 1.57), loss of clinical response (RR 0.94, 95% CI 0.70 to 1.25), and withdrawals due to adverse events (RR 0.77, 95% CI 0.30 to 1.97) for an active disease population with clinical response at baseline because the evidence is of very low certainty. We cannot draw any conclusions on the effects of infliximab compared to adalimumab on loss of clinical response (RR 0.68, 95% CI 0.29 to 1.59), withdrawals due to adverse events (RR 0.10, 95% CI 0.01 to 0.72), serious adverse events (RR 0.09, 95% CI 0.01 to 1.54) for an active disease population with clinical response at baseline because the evidence is of very low certainty. There was no evidence available for the outcome of clinical relapse. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Infliximab is probably more effective in preventing clinical relapse than placebo (moderate-certainty evidence). Infliximab in combination with purine analogues is probably more effective in preventing clinical and endoscopic relapse than purine analogues alone (moderate-certainty evidence). No conclusions can be drawn regarding prevention of loss of clinical response, occurrence of withdrawals due to adverse events, or total adverse events due to very low-certainty evidence for both of these comparisons. There may be little or no difference in prevention of clinical relapse, withdrawal due to adverse events or total adverse events between infliximab and a biosimilar (low-certainty evidence). Infliximab may lead to more loss of clinical response than a biosimilar (low-certainty evidence). We were unable to draw meaningful conclusions about other comparisons and outcomes related to missing data or very low-certainty evidence due to serious concerns about imprecision and risk of bias. Further research should focus on comparisons with other active therapies for maintaining remission, as well as ensuring adequate power calculations and reporting of methods.

ESPGHAN and NASPGHAN 2023 protocol for paediatric FAPD treatment guidelines (standard operating procedure).

INTRODUCTION: To date, no international guidelines have been published for the treatment of paediatric functional abdominal pain disorders (FAPDs), subcategorised into functional abdominal pain-not otherwise specified (FAP-NOS), irritable bowel syndrome (IBS), functional dyspepsia and abdominal migraine (AM). We aim for a treatment guideline, focusing on FAP-NOS, IBS and AM, that appreciates the extensive array of available therapies in this field. We present the prospective operating procedure and technical summary protocol in this manuscript. METHODS: Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) will be followed in the development of the guideline, following the approach as laid out in the GRADE handbook, supported by the WHO. The Guideline Development Group (GDG) is formed by paediatric gastroenterologists from both the European Society for Pediatric Gastroenterology, Hepatology and Nutrition, as well as the North American Society for Pediatric Gastroenterology, Hepatology and Nutrition. Also, one clinical psychologist with expertise in FAPDs is a voting member in the GDG. A final consensus list of treatment options is translated into 'patient, intervention, comparison, outcome' format options. Prospective agreement on the magnitude of health benefits or harms categories was reached through a Delphi process among the GDG to support grading of the literature.There will be a detailed technical evidence review with randomised controlled trial data that will be judged for risk of bias with the Cochrane tool. Recommendations are preferably based on GRADE but could also be best practice statements following the available evidence. A full Delphi process will be used to make recommendations using online response systems. This set of procedures has been approved by all members of the GDG.

Infliximab for medical induction of remission in Crohn's disease.

BACKGROUND: Infliximab is a monoclonal antibody that binds and neutralises tumour necrosis factor-alpha (TNF-α), which is present in high levels in the blood serum, mucosa and stool of people with Crohn's disease. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the benefits and harms of infliximab alone or in combination with another agent for induction of remission in Crohn's disease compared to placebo or active medical therapies. SEARCH METHODS: On 31 August 2021 and 4 March 2023, we searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, ClinicalTrials.gov and World Health Organization ICTRP. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised control trials (RCTs) comparing infliximab alone or in combination with another agent to placebo or another active comparator in adults with active Crohn's disease. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Pairs of review authors independently selected studies and conducted data extraction and risk of bias assessment. We expressed outcomes as risk ratios (RR) and mean differences (MD) with 95% confidence intervals (CI). We assessed the certainty of the evidence using GRADE. Our primary outcomes were clinical remission, clinical response and withdrawals due to adverse events. Our secondary outcomes were endoscopic remission, histological remission, endoscopic response, and serious and total adverse events. MAIN RESULTS: The search identified 10 RCTs with 1101 participants. They were conducted between 1999 and 2019, and 7/10 RCTs included biologically naive participants. All but one RCT, which did not provide information, were multicentre and funded by pharmaceutical companies, and their authors declared conflicts. The age of the participants ranged from 26 to 65 years. Results were based on one study unless otherwise stated. Infliximab 5 mg/kg to 10 mg/kg may be more effective than placebo at week four for clinical remission (30/55 versus 3/25; RR 4.55, 95% CI 1.53 to 13.50; number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB) 3) and response (36/55 versus 4/25; RR 4.09, 95% CI 1.63 to 10.25, NNTB 3). The evidence was low certainty. The study did not report withdrawals due to adverse events. We could not draw conclusions on the effects of infliximab 5 mg/kg to 10 mg/kg compared to placebo for fistulating participants for clinical remission (29/63 versus 4/31; RR 3.57, 95% CI 1.38 to 9.25; NNTB 4), response (48/106 versus 15/75; RR 1.94, 95% CI 1.10 to 3.41; NNTB 6; 2 studies) or withdrawals due to adverse events (2/63 versus 0/31; RR 2.50, 95% CI 0.12 to 50.54). The evidence was very low certainty. Infliximab used in combination with purine analogues is probably more effective than purine analogues alone for clinical remission at weeks 24 to 26 (182/301 versus 95/302; RR 1.92, 95% CI 1.59 to 2.32, NNTB 4; 4 studies; moderate-certainty evidence) and clinical response at week 26 (107/177 versus 66/178; RR 1.64, 95% CI 1.31 to 2.05; NNTB 5; 2 studies; moderate-certainty evidence). There may be little or no difference in withdrawals due to adverse events at week 26 (62/302 versus 53/301; RR 0.87, 95% CI 0.63 to 1.21; 4 studies; low-certainty evidence). Infliximab alone may be more effective than purine analogues alone at week 26 for clinical remission (85/177 versus 57/178; RR 1.50, 95% CI 1.15 to 1.95; NNTB 7; 2 studies) and response (94/177 versus 66/178; RR 1.44, 95% CI 1.13 to 1.82; NNTB 7; 2 studies). There may be little or no difference in withdrawals due to adverse events (30/177 versus 43/178; RR 0.70, 95% CI 0.46 to 1.06; 4 studies). The evidence was low certainty. We could not draw any conclusions on the effects of infliximab 5 mg/kg compared to 10 mg/kg for clinical remission (19/27 versus 11/28; RR 1.79, 95% CI 1.06 to 3.02) and response (22/27 versus 24/28; RR 1.63, 95% CI 1.08 to 2.46). The evidence was very low certainty. Withdrawals due to adverse events were not reported. We could not draw any conclusions on the effects of infliximab 5 mg/kg compared to 10 mg/kg in an exclusively fistulating population for clinical remission (17/31 versus 12/32; RR 1.46, 95% CI 0.84 to 2.53), response (21/31 versus 18/32; RR 1.20, 95% CI 0.82 to 1.78), or withdrawals due to adverse events (1/31 versus 1/32; RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.07 to 15.79). The evidence was very low certainty. We could not draw any conclusions on the effects of infliximab 5 mg/kg compared to 20 mg/kg for clinical remission (19/27 versus 11/28; RR 1.79, 95% CI 1.06 to 3.02) or response (22/27 versus 18/28; RR 1.27, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.76). The evidence was very low certainty. Withdrawals due to adverse events were not reported. We could not draw any conclusions on the effects of infliximab 10 mg/kg compared to 20 mg/kg for clinical remission (11/28 versus 11/28; RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.52 to 1.92) or response (14/28 versus 18/28; RR 0.78, 95% CI 0.49 to 1.23). The evidence was very low certainty. Withdrawals due to adverse events were not reported. There may be little or no difference between infliximab and a CT-P13 biosimilar at week six for clinical remission (47/109 versus 49/111; RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.72 to 1.32), response (67/109 versus 70/111; RR 0.97, 95% CI 0.79 to 1.20) and withdrawals due to adverse events (21/109 versus 17/111; RR 1.26, 95% CI 0.70 to 2.25). The evidence was low certainty. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Infliximab in combination with purine analogues is probably more effective than purine analogues alone in inducing clinical remission and clinical response. Infliximab alone may be more effective in inducing clinical remission and response than purine analogues alone or placebo. Infliximab may be similar in efficacy to a CT-P13 biosimilar and there may be little or no difference in withdrawals due to adverse events. We were unable to draw meaningful conclusions as to whether infliximab alone is effective when used for exclusively fistulating populations. There was evidence that there may be little or no difference in withdrawal due to adverse events between infliximab plus purines compared with purines alone, as well as infliximab alone compared with purines alone. Meaningful conclusions cannot be drawn on all other outcomes related to adverse events due to very low certainty evidence.

Vitamin D for the treatment of inflammatory bowel disease.

BACKGROUND: Vitamin D possesses immunomodulatory properties and has been implicated in the pathogenesis and severity of inflammatory bowel disease (IBD). Animal studies and emerging epidemiological evidence have demonstrated an association between vitamin D deficiency and worse disease activity. However, the role of vitamin D for the treatment of IBD is unclear. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the benefits and harms of vitamin D supplementation as a treatment for IBD. SEARCH METHODS: We used standard, extensive Cochrane search methods. The latest search date was Jun 2023. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in people of all ages with active or inactive IBD comparing any dose of vitamin D with another dose of vitamin D, another intervention, placebo, or no intervention. We defined doses as: vitamin D (all doses), any-treatment-dose vitamin D (greater than 400 IU/day), high-treatment-dose vitamin D (greater than 1000 IU/day), low-treatment-dose vitamin D (400 IU/day to 1000 IU/day), and supplemental-dose vitamin D (less than 400 IU/day). DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard Cochrane methods. Our primary outcomes were 1. clinical response for people with active disease, 2. clinical relapse for people in remission, 3. quality of life, and 4. withdrawals due to adverse events. Our secondary outcomes were 5. disease activity at end of study, 6. normalisation of vitamin D levels at end of study, and 7. total serious adverse events. We used GRADE to assess certainty of evidence for each outcome. MAIN RESULTS: We included 22 RCTs with 1874 participants. Study duration ranged from four to 52 weeks. Ten studies enroled people with Crohn's disease (CD), five enroled people with ulcerative colitis (UC), and seven enroled people with CD and people with UC. Seventeen studies included adults, three included children, and two included both. Four studies enroled people with active disease, six enroled people in remission, and 12 enroled both. We assessed each study for risk of bias across seven individual domains. Five studies were at low risk of bias across all seven domains. Ten studies were at unclear risk of bias in at least one domain but with no areas of high risk of bias. Seven studies were at high risk of bias for blinding of participants and assessors. Vitamin D (all doses) versus placebo or no treatment Thirteen studies compared vitamin D against placebo or no treatment. We could not draw any conclusions on clinical response for UC as the certainty of the evidence was very low (risk ratio (RR) 4.00, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.51 to 10.57; 1 study, 60 participants). There were no data on CD. There may be fewer clinical relapses for IBD when using vitamin D compared to placebo or no treatment (RR 0.57, 95% CI 0.34 to 0.96; 3 studies, 310 participants). The certainty of the evidence was low. We could not draw any conclusions on quality of life for IBD (standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.13, 95% CI -3.10 to 2.83 (the SMD value indicates a negligent decrease in quality of life, and the corresponding CIs indicate that the effect can range from a large decrease to a large increase in quality of life); 2 studies, 243 participants) or withdrawals due to adverse events for IBD (RR 1.97, 95% CI 0.18 to 21.27; 12 studies, 1251 participants; note 11 studies reported withdrawals but recorded 0 events in both groups. Thus, the RR and CIs were calculated from 1 study rather than 12). The certainty of the evidence was very low. High-treatment-dose vitamin D versus low-treatment-dose vitamin D Five studies compared high treatment vitamin D doses against low treatment vitamin D doses. There were no data on clinical response. There may be no difference in clinical relapse for CD (RR 0.48, 95% CI 0.23 to 1.01; 1 study, 34 participants). The certainty of the evidence was low. We could not draw any conclusions on withdrawals due to adverse events for IBD as the certainty of the evidence was very low (RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.06 to 13.08; 3 studies, 104 participants; note 2 studies reported withdrawals but recorded 0 events in both groups. Thus, the RR and CIs were calculated from 1 study rather than 3). The data on quality of life and disease activity could not be meta-analysed, were of very low certainty, and no conclusions could be drawn. Any-treatment-dose vitamin D versus supplemental-dose vitamin D Four studies compared treatment doses of vitamin D against supplemental doses. There were no data on clinical response and relapse. There were no data on quality of life that could be meta-analysed. We could not draw any conclusions on withdrawals due to adverse events for IBD as the certainty of the evidence was very low (RR 3.09, 95% CI 0.13 to 73.17; 4 studies, 233 participants; note 3 studies reported withdrawals but recorded 0 events in both groups. Thus, the RR and CIs were calculated from 1 study rather than 4). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There may be fewer clinical relapses when comparing vitamin D with placebo, but we cannot draw any conclusions on differences in clinical response, quality of life, or withdrawals, due to very low-certainty evidence. When comparing high and low doses of vitamin D, there were no data for clinical response, but there may be no difference in relapse for CD. We cannot draw conclusions on the other outcomes due to very low certainty evidence. Finally, comparing vitamin D (all doses) to supplemental-dose vitamin D, there were no data on clinical relapse or response, and we could not draw conclusions on other outcomes due to very low certainty evidence or missing data. It is difficult to make any clear recommendations for future research on the basis of the findings of this review. Future studies must be clear on the baseline populations, the purpose of vitamin D treatment, and, therefore, study an appropriate dosing strategy. Stakeholders in the field may wish to reach consensus on such issues prior to new studies.

Medical treatment of eosinophilic esophagitis.

BACKGROUND: Eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE) is a chronic antigen-mediated eosinophilic inflammatory disease isolated to the esophagus. As a clinicopathologic disorder, a diagnosis of EoE requires a constellation of clinical symptoms of esophageal dysfunction and histologic findings (at least 15 eosinophils/high-powered microscope field (eos/hpf)). Current guidelines no longer require the failure of response to proton pump inhibitor medications to establish a diagnosis of EoE, but continue to suggest the exclusion of other etiologies of esophageal eosinophilia. The treatment goals for EoE are improvement in clinical symptoms, resolution of esophageal eosinophilia and other histologic abnormalities, endoscopic improvement, improved quality of life, improved esophageal function, minimized adverse effects of treatment, and prevention of disease progression and subsequent complications. Currently, there is no cure for EoE, making long-term treatment necessary. Standard treatment modalities include dietary modifications, esophageal dilation, and pharmacologic therapy. Effective pharmacologic therapies include corticosteroids, rapidly emerging biological therapies, and proton pump inhibitor medications. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of medical interventions for people with eosinophilic esophagitis. SEARCH METHODS: We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, ClinicalTrials.gov, and WHO ICTRP to 3 March 2023. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing any medical intervention or food elimination diet for the treatment of eosinophilic esophagitis, either alone or in combination, to any other intervention (including placebo). DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Pairs of review authors independently selected studies and conducted data extraction and risk of bias assessment. We expressed outcomes as a risk ratio (RR) and as the mean or standardized mean difference (MD/SMD) with 95% confidence interval (CI). We assessed the certainty of the evidence using GRADE. Our primary outcomes were: clinical, histological, and endoscopic improvement, and withdrawals due to adverse events. Secondary outcomes were: serious and total adverse events, and quality of life. MAIN RESULTS: We included 41 RCTs with 3253 participants. Eleven studies included pediatric patients while the rest recruited both children and adults. Four studies were in patients with inactive disease while the rest were in patients with active disease. We identified 19 intervention comparisons. In this abstract we present the results of the primary outcomes for the two main comparisons: corticosteroids versus placebo and biologics versus placebo, based on the prespecified outcomes defined of the primary studies. Fourteen studies compared corticosteroids to placebo for induction of remission and the risk of bias for these studies was mostly low. Corticosteroids may lead to slightly better clinical improvement (20% higher), measured dichotomously (risk ratio (RR) 1.74, 95% CI 1.08 to 2.80; 6 studies, 583 participants; number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB) = 4; low certainty), and may lead to slightly better clinical improvement, measured continuously (standard mean difference (SMD) 0.51, 95% CI 0.17 to 0.85; 5 studies, 475 participants; low certainty). Corticosteroids lead to a large histological improvement (63% higher), measured dichotomously (RR 11.94, 95% CI 6.56 to 21.75; 12 studies, 978 participants; NNTB = 3; high certainty), and may lead to histological improvement, measured continuously (SMD 1.42, 95% CI 1.02 to 1.82; 5 studies, 449 participants; low certainty). Corticosteroids may lead to little to no endoscopic improvement, measured dichotomously (RR 2.60, 95% CI 0.82 to 8.19; 5 studies, 596 participants; low certainty), and may lead to endoscopic improvement, measured continuously (SMD 1.33, 95% CI 0.59 to 2.08; 5 studies, 596 participants; low certainty). Corticosteroids may lead to slightly fewer withdrawals due to adverse events (RR 0.64, 95% CI 0.43 to 0.96; 14 studies, 1032 participants; low certainty). Nine studies compared biologics to placebo for induction of remission. Biologics may result in little to no difference in clinical improvement, measured dichotomously (RR 1.14, 95% CI 0.85 to 1.52; 5 studies, 410 participants; low certainty), and may result in better clinical improvement, measured continuously (SMD 0.50, 95% CI 0.22 to 0.78; 7 studies, 387 participants; moderate certainty). Biologics result in better histological improvement (55% higher), measured dichotomously (RR 6.73, 95% CI 2.58 to 17.52; 8 studies, 925 participants; NNTB = 2; moderate certainty). We could not draw conclusions for this outcome when measured continuously (SMD 1.01, 95% CI 0.36 to 1.66; 6 studies, 370 participants; very low certainty). Biologics may result in little to no difference in endoscopic improvement, measured dichotomously (effect not estimable, low certainty). We cannot draw conclusions for this outcome when measured continuously (SMD 2.79, 95% CI 0.36 to 5.22; 1 study, 11 participants; very low certainty). There may be no difference in withdrawals due to adverse events (RR 1.55, 95% CI 0.88 to 2.74; 8 studies, 792 participants; low certainty). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Corticosteroids (as compared to placebo) may lead to clinical symptom improvement when reported both as dichotomous and continuous outcomes, from the primary study definitions. Corticosteroids lead to a large increase in histological improvement (dichotomous outcome) and may increase histological improvement (continuous outcome) when compared to placebo. Corticosteroids may or may not increase endoscopic improvement (depending on whether the outcome is measured dichotomously or continuously). Withdrawals due to adverse events (dichotomous outcome) may occur less frequently when corticosteroids are compared to placebo. Biologics (as compared to placebo) may not lead to clinical symptom improvement when reported as a dichotomous outcome and may lead to an increase in clinical symptom improvement (as a continuous outcome), from the primary study definitions. Biologics lead to a large increase in histological improvement when reported as a dichotomous outcome, but this is uncertain when reported as a continuous outcome, as compared to placebo. Biologics may not increase endoscopic improvement (dichotomous outcome), but this is uncertain when measured as a continuous outcome. Withdrawals due to adverse events as a dichotomous outcome may occur as frequently when biologics are compared to placebo.

Vedolizumab for induction and maintenance of remission in Crohn's disease.

BACKGROUND: Vedolizumab blocks inflammatory activity within the gastrointestinal tract. Systematic reviews have demonstrated the efficacy of vedolizumab in ulcerative colitis and inflammatory bowel disease in general. This systematic review and meta-analysis summarises the current evidence of vedolizumab in the induction and maintenance of remission in Crohn's disease. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the benefits and harms of vedolizumab versus placebo for the induction and maintenance of remission in people with Crohn's disease. SEARCH METHODS: We used standard, extensive Cochrane search methods. The latest search date was 30 November 2022. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs comparing vedolizumab to placebo for the induction or maintenance of remission in people with Crohn's disease. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard Cochrane methods. For induction studies, the primary outcome was 1. clinical remission, and secondary outcomes were rates of 2. clinical response, 3. adverse events, 4. serious adverse events, 5. surgery, 6. endoscopic remission and 7. endoscopic response. For maintenance studies, the primary outcome was 1. maintenance of clinical remission, and secondary outcomes were rates of 2. adverse events, 3. serious adverse events, 4. surgery, 5. endoscopic remission and 6. endoscopic response. We used GRADE to assess certainty of evidence. MAIN RESULTS: We analysed induction (4 trials, 1126 participants) and maintenance (3 trials, 894 participants) studies representing people across North America, Europe, Asia and Australasia separately. One maintenance trial administered subcutaneous vedolizumab whilst the other studies used the intravenous form. The mean age ranged between 32.6 and 38.6 years. Vedolizumab was superior to placebo for the induction of clinical remission (71 more per 1000 with clinical remission with vedolizumab; risk ratio (RR) 1.61, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.20 to 2.17; number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB) 13; 4 studies; high-certainty evidence) and superior to placebo for inducing clinical response (105 more per 1000 with clinical response with vedolizumab; RR 1.43, 95% CI 1.19 to 1.71; NNTB 8; 4 studies; high-certainty evidence). For the induction phase, vedolizumab may be equivalent to placebo for the development of serious adverse events (9 fewer serious adverse events per 1000 with vedolizumab; RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.62 to 1.33; 4 studies; low-certainty evidence) and probably equivalent to placebo for overall adverse events (6 fewer adverse events per 1000 with vedolizumab; RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.93 to 1.11; 4 studies; moderate-certainty evidence). Vedolizumab was superior to placebo for the maintenance of clinical remission (141 more per 1000 with maintenance of clinical remission with vedolizumab; RR 1.52, 95% CI 1.24 to 1.87; NNTB 7; 3 studies; high-certainty evidence). During the maintenance phase, vedolizumab may be equivalent to placebo for the development of serious adverse events (3 fewer serious adverse events per 1000 with vedolizumab; RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.68 to 1.39; 3 studies; low-certainty evidence) and probably equivalent to placebo for the development of overall adverse events (0 difference in adverse events per 1000; RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.94 to 1.07; 3 studies; moderate-certainty evidence). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: High-certainty data across four induction and three maintenance trials demonstrate that vedolizumab is superior to placebo in the induction and maintenance of remission in Crohn's disease. Overall adverse events are probably similar and serious adverse events may be similar between vedolizumab and placebo during both induction and maintenance phases of treatment. Head-to-head research comparing the efficacy and safety of vedolizumab to other biological therapies is required.

Patient education interventions for the management of inflammatory bowel disease.

BACKGROUND: Inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) is a life-long condition for which currently there is no cure. Patient educational interventions deliver structured information to their recipients. Evidence suggests patient education can have positive effects in other chronic diseases. OBJECTIVES: To identify the different types of educational interventions, how they are delivered, and to determine their effectiveness and safety in people with IBD. SEARCH METHODS: On 27 November 2022, we searched CENTRAL, Embase, MEDLINE, ClinicalTrials.gov, and WHO ICTRP with no limitations to language, date, document type, or publication status. Any type of formal or informal educational intervention, lasting for any time, that had content focused directly on knowledge about IBD or skills needed for direct management of IBD or its symptoms was included. Delivery methods included face-to-face or remote educational sessions, workshops, guided study via the use of printed or online materials, the use of mobile applications, or any other method that delivers information to patients. SELECTION CRITERIA: All published, unpublished and ongoing randomised control trials (RCTs) that compare educational interventions targeted at people with IBD to any other type of intervention or no intervention. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently conducted data extraction and risk of bias assessment of the included studies. We analysed data using Review Manager Web. We expressed dichotomous and continuous outcomes as risk ratios (RRs) and mean differences (MDs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). We assessed the certainty of the evidence using GRADE methodology. MAIN RESULTS: We included 14 studies with a total of 2708 randomised participants, aged 11 to 75 years. Two studies examined populations who all had ulcerative colitis (UC); the remaining studies examined a mix of IBD patients (UC and Crohn's disease). Studies considered a range of disease activity states. The length of the interventions ranged from 30 minutes to 12 months. Education was provided in the form of in-person workshops/lectures, and remotely via printed materials or multimedia, smartphones and internet learning. Thirteen studies compared patient education interventions plus standard care against standard care alone. The interventions included seminars, information booklets, text messages, e-learning, a multi professional group-based programme, guidebooks, a staff-delivered programme based on an illustrated book, a standardised programme followed by group session, lectures alternating with group therapy, educational sessions based on an IBD guidebook, internet blog access and text messages, a structured education programme, and interactive videos. Risk of bias findings were concerning in all judgement areas across all studies. No single study was free of unclear or high of bias judgements. Reporting of most outcomes in a homogeneous fashion was limited, with quality of life at study end reported most commonly in six of the 14 studies which allowed for meta-analysis, with all other outcomes reported in a more heterogeneous manner that limited wider analysis. Two studies provided data on disease activity. There was no clear difference in disease activity when patient education (n = 277) combined with standard care was compared to standard care (n = 202). Patient education combined with standard care is probably equivalent to standard care in reducing disease activity in patients with IBD (standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.03, 95% CI -0.25 to 0.20), moderate-certainty evidence. Two studies provided continuous data on flare-up/relapse. There was no clear difference for flare-ups or relapse when patient education (n = 515) combined with standard care was compared to standard care (n = 507), as a continuous outcome. Patient education combined with standard care is probably equivalent to standard care in reducing flare-ups or relapse in patients with IBD (MD -0.00, 95% CI -0.06 to 0.05; moderate-certainty evidence). Three studies provided dichotomous data on flare-up/relapse. The evidence is very uncertain on whether patient education combined with standard care (n = 157) is different to standard care (n = 150) in reducing flare-ups or relapse in patients with IBD (RR 0.94, 95% CI 0.41 to 2.18; very low-certainty evidence). Six studies provided data on quality of life. There was no clear difference in quality of life when patient education combined with standard care (n = 721) was compared to standard care (n = 643). Patient education combined with standard care is probably equivalent to standard care in improving quality of life in patients with IBD (SMD 0.08, 95% CI -0.03 to 0.18; moderate-certainty evidence). The included studies did not report major differences on healthcare access. Medication adherence, patient knowledge and change in quality of life showed conflicting results that varied between no major differences and differences in favour of the educational interventions. Only five studies reported on adverse events. Four reported zero total adverse events and one reported one case of breast cancer and two cases of surgery in their interventions groups, and zero adverse events in their control group. Two studies compared delivery methods of patient education, specifically: web-based patient education interventions versus colour-printed books or text messages; and one study compared frequency of patient education, specifically: weekly educational text messages versus once every other week educational text messages. These did not show major differences for disease activity and quality of life. Other outcomes were not reported. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The ways in which patient educational support surrounding IBD may impact on disease outcomes is complex. There is evidence that education added to standard care is probably of no benefit to disease activity or quality of life when compared with standard care, and may be of no benefit for occurrence of relapse when compared with standard care. However, as there was a paucity of specific information regarding the components of education or standard care, the utility of these findings is questionable. Further research on the impact of education on our primary outcomes of disease activity, flare-ups/relapse and quality of life is probably not indicated. However, further research is necessary, which should focus on reporting details of the educational interventions and study outcomes that educational interventions could be directly targeted to address, such as healthcare access and medication adherence. These should be informed by direct engagement with stakeholders and people affected by Crohn's and colitis.

ANTECEDENTES: La enfermedad inflamatoria intestinal (EII) es una enfermedad crónica para la que no existe cura en la actualidad. Las intervenciones educativas para pacientes proporcionan información estructurada a sus destinatarios. La evidencia sugiere que la educación del paciente puede tener efectos positivos en otras enfermedades crónicas. OBJETIVOS: Identificar los diferentes tipos de intervenciones educativas, cómo se realizan y determinar su eficacia y seguridad en personas con EII. MÉTODOS DE BÚSQUEDA: El 27 de noviembre de 2022 se realizaron búsquedas en CENTRAL, Embase, MEDLINE, ClinicalTrials.gov y la ICTRP de la OMS sin limitaciones de idioma, fecha, tipo de documento o estado de publicación. Se incluyó cualquier tipo de intervención educativa formal o informal, de cualquier duración, cuyo contenido se centrara directamente en los conocimientos sobre la EII o en las habilidades necesarias para el control directo de la EII o sus síntomas. Los métodos de entrega incluyeron sesiones educativas presenciales o a distancia, talleres, estudio guiado mediante el uso de materiales impresos o en línea, el uso de aplicaciones móviles o cualquier otro método que proporcionara información a los pacientes. CRITERIOS DE SELECCIÓN: Todos los ensayos controlados aleatorizados (ECA) publicados, no publicados y en curso que comparen intervenciones educativas dirigidas a personas con EII con cualquier otro tipo de intervención o ninguna intervención. OBTENCIÓN Y ANÁLISIS DE LOS DATOS: Dos autores de la revisión realizaron de forma independiente la extracción de los datos y la evaluación del riesgo de sesgo de los estudios incluidos. Los datos se analizaron mediante Review Manager Web. Los desenlaces dicotómicos y continuos se expresaron como razones de riesgos (RR) y diferencias de medias (DM) con intervalos de confianza (IC) del 95%. La certeza de la evidencia se evaluó mediante el método GRADE. RESULTADOS PRINCIPALES: Se incluyeron 14 estudios con un total de 2708 participantes asignados al azar, de edades comprendidas entre los 11 y los 75 años. Dos estudios examinaron poblaciones que tenían todas colitis ulcerosa (CU); los estudios restantes examinaron una mezcla de pacientes con EII (CU y enfermedad de Crohn). Los estudios consideraron una serie de estados de actividad de la enfermedad. La duración de las intervenciones osciló entre 30 minutos y 12 meses. La educación se impartió en forma de talleres/conferencias presenciales y a distancia mediante material impreso o multimedia, teléfonos inteligentes y aprendizaje por Internet. Trece estudios compararon las intervenciones educativas para pacientes más la atención estándar con la atención estándar sola. Las intervenciones incluyeron seminarios, folletos informativos, mensajes de texto, aprendizaje electrónico, un programa multiprofesional basado en grupos, guías, un programa impartido por el personal basado en un libro ilustrado, un programa estandarizado seguido de una terapia grupal, conferencias alternadas con terapia grupal, sesiones educativas basadas en una guía sobre la EII, acceso a blogs de Internet y mensajes de texto, un programa educativo estructurado y vídeos interactivos. Los hallazgos de riesgo de sesgo fueron preocupantes en todas las áreas de valoración en todos los estudios. Ningún estudio estuvo libre de valoraciones de sesgo incierto o alto. El informe de la mayoría de los desenlaces de forma homogénea fue limitado, con la calidad de vida al final del estudio informada con mayor frecuencia en seis de los 14 estudios que permitieron el metanálisis, y todos los demás desenlaces fueron informados de forma más heterogénea, lo que impidió un análisis más amplio. Dos estudios proporcionaron datos sobre la actividad de la enfermedad. No hubo diferencias claras en la actividad de la enfermedad cuando se comparó la educación del paciente (n = 277) combinada con la atención estándar con la atención estándar sola (n = 202). La educación del paciente combinada con la atención estándar es probablemente equivalente a la atención estándar en la reducción de la actividad de la enfermedad en pacientes con EII (diferencia de medias estandarizada [DME] ­0,03; IC del 95%: ­0,25 a 0,20), evidencia de certeza moderada. Dos estudios proporcionaron datos continuos sobre las exacerbaciones/recaídas. No hubo diferencias claras en las exacerbaciones o recaídas cuando se comparó la educación del paciente (n = 515) combinada con la atención estándar con la atención estándar sola (n = 507), como desenlace continuo. La educación del paciente combinada con la atención estándar es probablemente equivalente a la atención estándar en la reducción de las exacerbaciones o recaídas en pacientes con EII (DM ­0,00; IC del 95%: ­0,06 a 0,05; evidencia de certeza moderada). Tres estudios proporcionaron datos dicotómicos sobre las exacerbaciones/recaídas. La evidencia es muy incierta en cuanto a si la educación del paciente combinada con la atención estándar (n = 157) es diferente de la atención estándar (n = 150) en la reducción de las exacerbaciones o recaídas en pacientes con EII (RR 0,94; IC del 95%: 0,41 a 2,18; evidencia de certeza muy baja). Seis estudios proporcionaron datos sobre la calidad de vida. No hubo diferencias claras en la calidad de vida cuando se comparó la educación del paciente combinada con la atención estándar (n = 721) con la atención estándar sola (n = 643). La educación del paciente combinada con la atención estándar es probablemente equivalente a la atención estándar para mejorar la calidad de vida en los pacientes con EII (DME 0,08; IC del 95%: ­0,03 a 0,18; evidencia de certeza moderada). Los estudios incluidos no informaron de diferencias importantes en el acceso a la asistencia sanitaria. La adherencia a la medicación, el conocimiento de los pacientes y el cambio en la calidad de vida mostraron resultados contradictorios que oscilaron entre la falta de diferencias importantes y las diferencias a favor de las intervenciones educativas. Solo cinco estudios informaron sobre los eventos adversos. Cuatro informaron cero eventos adversos totales y uno informó un caso de cáncer de mama y dos casos de cirugía en sus grupos de intervención, y cero eventos adversos en su grupo de control. Dos estudios compararon los métodos de entrega de la educación del paciente, en concreto: intervenciones educativas para pacientes a través de la web versus libros impresos a color o mensajes de texto; y un estudio comparó la frecuencia de la educación del paciente, en concreto: mensajes de texto educativos semanales versus mensajes de texto educativos una vez cada dos semanas. Estos no mostraron diferencias importantes en cuanto a la actividad de la enfermedad y la calidad de vida. No se informaron otros desenlaces. CONCLUSIONES DE LOS AUTORES: Las formas en que el apoyo educativo al paciente en torno a la EII podría influir en los desenlaces de la enfermedad son complejas. Existe evidencia de que la educación añadida a la atención estándar probablemente no tenga efectos beneficiosos en la actividad de la enfermedad o la calidad de vida en comparación con la atención estándar, y podría no tener beneficios en la aparición de recaídas en comparación con la atención estándar. Sin embargo, como hubo escasa información específica sobre los componentes de la educación o la atención estándar, la utilidad de estos hallazgos es cuestionable. Probablemente no esté indicado investigar más sobre el impacto de la educación en los desenlaces principales de la actividad de la enfermedad, las exacerbaciones/recaídas ni la calidad de vida. Sin embargo, se necesitan más estudios de investigación que deberían centrarse en informar sobre los detalles de las intervenciones educativas y estudiar los desenlaces que las intervenciones educativas podrían abordar directamente, como el acceso a la atención sanitaria y la adherencia a la medicación. Éstas deben basarse en el compromiso directo con las partes interesadas y las personas afectadas por la enfermedad de Crohn y la colitis.

Remote care through telehealth for people with inflammatory bowel disease.

BACKGROUND: People with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) require intensive follow-up with frequent consultations after diagnosis. IBD telehealth management includes consulting by phone, instant messenger, video, text message, or web-based services. Telehealth can be beneficial for people with IBD, but may have its own set of challenges. It is important to systematically review the evidence on the types of remote or telehealth approaches that can be deployed in IBD. This is particularly relevant following the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, which led to increased self- and remote-management. OBJECTIVES: To identify the communication technologies used to achieve remote healthcare for people with inflammatory bowel disease and to assess their effectiveness. SEARCH METHODS: On 13 January 2022, we searched CENTRAL, Embase, MEDLINE, three other databases, and three trials registries with no limitations on language, date, document type, or publication status. SELECTION CRITERIA: All published, unpublished, and ongoing randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that evaluated telehealth interventions targeted at people with IBD versus any other type of intervention or no intervention. We did not include studies based on digital patient information resources or education resources, unless they formed part of a wider package including an element of telehealth. We excluded studies where remote monitoring of blood or faecal tests was the only form of monitoring. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently extracted data from the included studies and assessed their risk of bias. We analysed studies on adult and paediatric populations separately. We expressed the effects of dichotomous outcomes as risk ratios (RRs) and the effects of continuous outcomes as mean differences (MDs) or standardised mean differences (SMDs), each with their 95% confidence intervals (CIs). We assessed the certainty of the evidence using GRADE methodology. MAIN RESULTS: We included 19 RCTs with a total of 3489 randomised participants, aged eight to 95 years. Three studies examined only people with ulcerative colitis (UC), two studies examined only people with Crohn's disease (CD), and the remaining studies examined a mix of IBD patients. Studies considered a range of disease activity states. The length of the interventions ranged from six months to two years. The telehealth interventions were web-based and telephone-based. Web-based monitoring versus usual care Twelve studies compared web-based disease monitoring to usual care. Three studies, all in adults, provided data on disease activity. Web-based disease monitoring (n = 254) is probably equivalent to usual care (n = 174) in reducing disease activity in people with IBD (SMD 0.09, 95% CI -0.11 to 0.29). The certainty of the evidence is moderate. Five studies on adults provided dichotomous data that we could use for a meta-analysis on flare-ups. Web-based disease monitoring (n = 207/496) is probably equivalent to usual care (n = 150/372) for the occurrence of flare-ups or relapses in adults with IBD (RR 1.09, 95% CI 0.93 to 1.27). The certainty of the evidence is moderate. One study provided continuous data. Web-based disease monitoring (n = 465) is probably equivalent to usual care (n = 444) for the occurrence of flare-ups or relapses in adults with CD (MD 0.00 events, 95% CI -0.06 to 0.06). The certainty of the evidence is moderate. One study provided dichotomous data on flare-ups in a paediatric population. Web-based disease monitoring (n = 28/84) may be equivalent to usual care (n = 29/86) for the occurrence of flare-ups or relapses in children with IBD (RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.65 to 1.51). The certainty of the evidence is low. Four studies, all in adults, provided data on quality of life. Web-based disease monitoring (n = 594) is probably equivalent to usual care (n = 505) for quality of life in adults with IBD (SMD 0.08, 95% CI -0.04 to 0.20). The certainty of the evidence is moderate. Based on continuous data from one study in adults, we found that web-based disease monitoring probably leads to slightly higher medication adherence compared to usual care (MD 0.24 points, 95% CI 0.01 to 0.47). The results are of moderate certainty. Based on continuous data from one paediatric study, we found no difference between web-based disease monitoring and usual care in terms of their effect on medication adherence (MD 0.00, 95% CI -0.63 to 0.63), although the evidence is very uncertain. When we meta-analysed dichotomous data from two studies on adults, we found no difference between web-based disease monitoring and usual care in terms of their effect on medication adherence (RR 0.87, 95% CI 0.62 to 1.21), although the evidence is very uncertain. We were unable to draw any conclusions on the effects of web-based disease monitoring compared to usual care on healthcare access, participant engagement, attendance rate, interactions with healthcare professionals, and cost- or time-effectiveness. The certainty of the evidence is very low. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The evidence in this review suggests that web-based disease monitoring is probably no different to standard care in adults when considering disease activity, occurrence of flare-ups or relapse, and quality of life. There may be no difference in these outcomes in children, but the evidence is limited. Web-based monitoring probably increases medication adherence slightly compared to usual care. We are uncertain about the effects of web-based monitoring versus usual care on our other secondary outcomes, and about the effects of the other telehealth interventions included in our review, because the evidence is limited. Further studies comparing web-based disease monitoring to standard care for the clinical outcomes reported in adults are unlikely to change our conclusions, unless they have longer follow-up or investigate under-reported outcomes or populations. Studies with a clearer definition of web-based monitoring would enhance applicability, enable practical dissemination and replication, and enable alignment with areas identified as important by stakeholders and people affected by IBD.

BSG 2024 IBD guidelines protocol (standard operating procedures).

INTRODUCTION: In the past 5 years, there have been several advances in the management of inflammatory bowel disease (IBD). We aim for a new guideline to update the most recent guideline published in 2019. We present the prospective operating procedure and technical summary protocol in the manuscript. METHODS: 'Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation' (GRADE) will be followed in the development of the guideline, approach as laid out in the GRADE handbook, supported by the WHO. The guideline development group is formed by a variety of disciplines, across both primary and secondary care that took part in an online Delphi process and split into key areas. A final consensus list of thematic questions within a 'patient, intervention, comparison, outcome' format has been produced and agreed in the final phase of the Delphi process.There will be a detailed technical evidence review with source data including systematic reviews appraised with AMSATAR 2 tool (Assessment of multiple systematic reviews), randomised controlled trial data that will be judged for risk of bias with the Cochrane tool and observational studies for safety concerns assessed through the Robins-I tool. Based on the available evidence, some of the recommendations will be based on GRADE while others will be best practice statements.A full Delphi process will be used to make recommendations using online response systems.This set of procedures has been approved by the Clinical Services and Standards Committee, the British Society of Gastroenterology executive board and aligned with IBD UK standards.

Probiotics for management of functional abdominal pain disorders in children.

BACKGROUND: Functional abdominal pain is pain occurring in the abdomen that cannot be fully explained by another medical condition and is common in children. It has been hypothesised that the use of micro-organisms, such as probiotics and synbiotics (a mixture of probiotics and prebiotics), might change the composition of bacterial colonies in the bowel and reduce inflammation, as well as promote normal gut physiology and reduce functional symptoms. OBJECTIVES: To assess the efficacy and safety of probiotics in the treatment of functional abdominal pain disorders in children. SEARCH METHODS: We searched MEDLINE, Embase, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) and two clinical trials registers from inception to October 2021. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that compare probiotic preparations (including synbiotics) to placebo, no treatment or any other interventional preparation in patients aged between 4 and 18 years of age with a diagnosis of functional abdominal pain disorder according to the Rome II, Rome III or Rome IV criteria. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: The primary outcomes were treatment success as defined by the primary studies, complete resolution of pain, improvement in the severity of pain and improvement in the frequency of pain. Secondary outcomes included serious adverse events, withdrawal due to adverse events, adverse events, school performance or change in school performance or attendance, social and psychological functioning or change in social and psychological functioning, and quality of life or change in quality life measured using any validated scoring tool. For dichotomous outcomes, we calculated the risk ratio (RR) and corresponding 95% confidence interval (95% CI). For continuous outcomes, we calculated the mean difference (MD) and corresponding 95% CI. MAIN RESULTS: We included 18 RCTs assessing the effectiveness of probiotics and synbiotics in reducing the severity and frequency of pain, involving a total of 1309 patients. Probiotics may achieve more treatment success when compared with placebo at the end of the treatment, with 50% success in the probiotic group versus 33% success in the placebo group (RR 1.57, 95% CI 1.05 to 2.36; 554 participants; 6 studies; I2 = 70%; low-certainty evidence).  It is not clear whether probiotics are more effective than placebo for complete resolution of pain, with 42% success in the probiotic group versus 27% success in the placebo group (RR 1.55, 95% CI 0.94 to 2.56; 460 participants; 6 studies; I2 = 70%; very low-certainty evidence). We judged the evidence to be of very low certainty due to high inconsistency and risk of bias. We were unable to draw meaningful conclusions from our meta-analyses of the pain severity and pain frequency outcomes due to very high unexplained heterogeneity leading to very low-certainty evidence. None of the included studies reported serious adverse events. Meta-analysis showed no difference in withdrawals due to adverse events between probiotics (1/275) and placebo (1/269) (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.07 to 15.12). The results were identical for the total patients with any reported adverse event outcome. However, these results are of very low certainty due to imprecision from the very low numbers of events and risk of bias. Synbiotics may result in more treatment success at study end when compared with placebo, with 47% success in the probiotic group versus 35% success in the placebo group (RR 1.34, 95% CI 1.03 to 1.74; 310 participants; 4 studies; I2 = 0%; low certainty). One study used Bifidobacterium coagulans/fructo-oligosaccharide, one used Bifidobacterium lactis/inulin, one used Lactobacillus rhamnosus GG/inulin and in one study this was not stated).  Synbiotics may result in little difference in complete resolution of pain at study end when compared with placebo, with 52% success in the probiotic group versus 32% success in the placebo group (RR 1.65, 95% CI 0.97 to 2.81; 131 participants; 2 studies; I2 = 18%; low-certainty evidence). We were unable to draw meaningful conclusions from our meta-analyses of pain severity or frequency of pain due to very high unexplained heterogeneity leading to very low-certainty evidence.  None of the included studies reported serious adverse events. Meta-analysis showed little to no difference in withdrawals due to adverse events between synbiotics (8/155) and placebo (1/147) (RR 4.58, 95% CI 0.80 to 26.19), or in any reported adverse events (3/96 versus 1/93, RR 2.88, 95% CI 0.32 to 25.92). These results are of very low certainty due to imprecision from the very low numbers of events and risk of bias. There were insufficient data to analyse by subgroups of specific functional abdominal pain syndrome (irritable bowel syndrome, functional dyspepsia, abdominal migraine, functional abdominal pain - not otherwise specified) or by specific strain of probiotic. There was insufficient evidence on school performance or change in school performance/attendance, social and psychological functioning, or quality of life to draw conclusions about the effects of probiotics or synbiotics on these outcomes. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The results from this review demonstrate that probiotics and synbiotics may be more efficacious than placebo in achieving treatment success, but the evidence is of low certainty. The evidence demonstrates little to no difference between probiotics or synbiotics and placebo in complete resolution of pain. We were unable to draw meaningful conclusions about the impact of probiotics or synbiotics on the frequency and severity of pain as the evidence was all of very low certainty due to significant unexplained heterogeneity or imprecision. There were no reported cases of serious adverse events when using probiotics or synbiotics amongst the included studies, although a review of RCTs may not be the best context to assess long-term safety. The available evidence on adverse effects was of very low certainty and no conclusions could be made in this review. Safety will always be a priority in paediatric populations when considering any treatment. Reporting of all adverse events, adverse events needing withdrawal, serious adverse events and, particularly, long-term safety outcomes are vital to meaningfully move forward the evidence base in this field. Further targeted and appropriately designed RCTs are needed to address the gaps in the evidence base. In particular, appropriate powering of studies to confirm the safety of specific strains not yet investigated and studies to investigate long-term follow-up of patients are both warranted.

Virtual interviewing for graduate medical education recruitment and selection: A BEME systematic review: BEME Guide No. 80.

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic caused graduate medical education (GME) programs to pivot to virtual interviews (VIs) for recruitment and selection. This systematic review synthesizes the rapidly expanding evidence base on VIs, providing insights into preferred formats, strengths, and weaknesses. METHODS: PubMed/MEDLINE, Scopus, ERIC, PsycINFO, MedEdPublish, and Google Scholar were searched from 1 January 2012 to 21 February 2022. Two authors independently screened titles, abstracts, full texts, performed data extraction, and assessed risk of bias using the Medical Education Research Quality Instrument. Findings were reported according to Best Evidence in Medical Education guidance. RESULTS: One hundred ten studies were included. The majority (97%) were from North America. Fourteen were conducted before COVID-19 and 96 during the pandemic. Studies involved both medical students applying to residencies (61%) and residents applying to fellowships (39%). Surgical specialties were more represented than other specialties. Applicants preferred VI days that lasted 4-6 h, with three to five individual interviews (15-20 min each), with virtual tours and opportunities to connect with current faculty and trainees. Satisfaction with VIs was high, though both applicants and programs found VIs inferior to in-person interviews for assessing 'fit.' Confidence in ranking applicants and programs was decreased. Stakeholders universally noted significant cost and time savings with VIs, as well as equity gains and reduced carbon footprint due to eliminating travel. CONCLUSIONS: The use of VIs for GME recruitment and selection has accelerated rapidly. The findings of this review offer early insights that can guide future practice, policy, and research.

Antibiotics for the induction and maintenance of remission in ulcerative colitis.

BACKGROUND: Antibiotics have been considered to treat ulcerative colitis (UC) due to their antimicrobial properties against intestinal bacteria linked to inflammation. However, there are concerns about their efficacy and safety. OBJECTIVES: To determine whether antibiotic therapy is safe and effective for the induction and maintenance of remission in people with UC. SEARCH METHODS: We searched five electronic databases on 10 December 2021 for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing antibiotic therapy to placebo or an active comparator. SELECTION CRITERIA: We considered people with UC of all ages, treated with antibiotics of any type, dose, and route of administration for inclusion. Induction studies required a minimum duration of two weeks for inclusion. Maintenance studies required a minimum duration of three months to be considered for inclusion. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. Our primary outcome for induction studies was failure to achieve remission and for maintenance studies was relapse, as defined by the primary studies. MAIN RESULTS: We included 12 RCTs (847 participants). One maintenance of remission study used sole antibiotic therapy compared with 5-aminosalicylic acid (5-ASA). All other trials used concurrent medications or standard care regimens and antibiotics as an adjunct therapy or compared antibiotics with other adjunct therapies to examine the effect on induction of remission. There is high certainty evidence that antibiotics (154/304 participants) compared to placebo (175/304 participants) result in no difference in failure to achieve clinical remission (risk ratio (RR) 0.88, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.74 to 1.06). A subgroup analysis found no differences when steroids, steroids plus 5-ASA, or steroids plus 5-ASA plus probiotics were used as additional therapies to antibiotics and placebo. There is low certainty evidence that antibiotics (102/168 participants) compared to placebo (121/175 participants) may result in no difference in failure to achieve clinical response (RR 0.75, 95% CI 0.47 to 1.22). A subgroup analysis found no differences when steroids or steroids plus 5-ASA were used as additional therapies to antibiotics and placebo. There is low certainty evidence that antibiotics (6/342 participants) compared to placebo (5/349 participants) may result in no difference in serious adverse events (RR 1.19, 95% CI 0.38 to 3.71). A subgroup analysis found no differences when steroids were additional therapies to antibiotics and placebo. There is low certainty evidence that antibiotics (3/342 participants) compared to placebo (1/349 participants) may result in no difference in withdrawals due to adverse events (RR 2.06, 95% CI 0.27 to 15.72). A subgroup analysis found no differences when steroids or steroids plus 5-ASA were additional therapies to antibiotics and placebo. It is unclear if there is any difference between antibiotics in combination with probiotics compared to no treatment or placebo for failure to achieve clinical remission (RR 0.68, 95% CI 0.39 to 1.19), serious adverse events (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.07 to 15.08), or withdrawals due to adverse events (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.07 to 15.08). The certainty of the evidence is very low. It is unclear if there is any difference between antibiotics compared to 5-ASA for failure to achieve clinical remission (RR 2.20, 95% CI 1.17 to 4.14). The certainty of the evidence is very low. It is unclear if there is any difference between antibiotics compared to probiotics for failure to achieve clinical remission (RR 0.47, 95% CI 0.23 to 0.94). The certainty of the evidence is very low. It is unclear if there is any difference between antibiotics compared to 5-ASA for failure to maintain clinical remission (RR 0.71, 95% CI 0.47 to 1.06). The certainty of the evidence is very low. It is unclear if there is any difference between antibiotics compared to no treatment for failure to achieve clinical remission in a mixed population of people with active and inactive disease (RR 0.56, 95% CI 0.29 to 1.07). The certainty of the evidence is very low. For all other outcomes, no effects could be estimated due to a lack of data. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is high certainty evidence that there is no difference between antibiotics and placebo in the proportion of people who achieve clinical remission at the end of the intervention period. However, there is evidence that there may be a greater proportion of people who achieve clinical remission and probably a greater proportion who achieve clinical response with antibiotics when compared with placebo at 12 months. There may be no difference in serious adverse events or withdrawals due to adverse events between antibiotics and placebo. No clear conclusions can be drawn for any other comparisons. A clear direction for future research appears to be comparisons of antibiotics and placebo (in addition to standard therapies) with longer-term measurement of outcomes. Additionally. As there were single studies of other head-to-head comparisons, there may be scope for future studies in this area.

Tacrolimus (FK506) for induction of remission in corticosteroid-refractory ulcerative colitis.

BACKGROUND: There are a limited number of treatment options for people with corticosteroid-refractory ulcerative colitis. Animal models of inflammatory bowel disease and uncontrolled studies in humans suggest that tacrolimus may be an effective treatment for ulcerative colitis. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of tacrolimus for induction of remission in people with corticosteroid-refractory ulcerative colitis. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Gut group specialised register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE (PubMed), Embase, Clinicaltrials.gov and WHO ICTRP from inception to October 2021 to identify relevant randomised controlled trials (RCT). SELECTION CRITERIA: Two review authors independently selected potentially relevant studies to determine eligibility based on the prespecified criteria. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently extracted data and analysed them using Review Manager Web. The primary outcomes were induction of remission and clinical improvement, as defined by the studies and expressed as a percentage of the participants randomised (intention-to-treat analysis). MAIN RESULTS: This review included five RCTs with 347 participants who had active ulcerative colitis or ulcerative proctitis. The duration of intervention varied between two weeks and eight weeks. Tacrolimus versus placebo Tacrolimus (oral and rectal) may be superior in achieving clinical remission compared to placebo (oral and rectal) (14/87 participants with tacrolimus versus 1/61 participants with placebo; risk ratio (RR) 3.76, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.03 to 13.73; 3 studies). These results are of low certainty due to imprecision and risk of bias. Tacrolimus (oral and rectal) may be superior for clinical improvement compared to placebo (oral and rectal) (45/87 participants with tacrolimus versus 7/61 participants with placebo; RR 4.47, 95% CI 2.15 to 9.29; 3 studies). These results are of low certainty due to imprecision and risk of bias. The evidence is very uncertain about the effects of tacrolimus (oral and rectal) on serious adverse events compared to placebo (oral and rectal) (2/87 participants with tacrolimus versus 0/61 participants with placebo; RR 2.44, 95% CI 0.12 to 48.77; 3 studies). These results are of very low certainty due to high imprecision and risk of bias. Tacrolimus versus ciclosporin One study compared oral tacrolimus to intravenous ciclosporin, with an intervention lasting two weeks and 113 randomised participants. The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of tacrolimus on achievement of clinical remission compared to ciclosporin (15/33 participants with tacrolimus versus 24/80 participants with ciclosporin; RR 1.52, 95% CI 0.92 to 2.50). The results are of very low certainty due to risk of bias and high imprecision. The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of tacrolimus on clinical improvement compared to intravenous ciclosporin (23/33 participants with tacrolimus versus 62/80 participants with ciclosporin; RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.70 to 1.16). The results are of very low certainty due to risk of bias and imprecision. Tacrolimus versus beclometasone One study compared tacrolimus suppositories with beclometasone suppositories in an intervention lasting four weeks with 88 randomised participants. There may be little to no difference in achievement of clinical remission (16/44 participants with tacrolimus versus 15/44 participants with beclometasone; RR 1.07, 95% CI 0.60 to 1.88). The results are of low certainty due to high imprecision. There may be little to no difference in clinical improvement when comparing tacrolimus suppositories to beclometasone suppositories (22/44 participants with tacrolimus versus 22/44 with beclometasone; RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.66 to 1.52). The results are of low certainty due to high imprecision. There may be little to no difference in serious adverse events when comparing tacrolimus suppositories to beclometasone suppositories (1/44 participants with tacrolimus versus 0/44 with beclometasone; RR 3.00, 95% CI 0.13 to 71.70). These results are of low certainty due to high imprecision. There may be little to no difference in total adverse events when comparing tacrolimus suppositories to beclometasone suppositories (21/44 participants with tacrolimus versus 14/44 participants with beclometasone; RR 1.50, 95% CI 0.88 to 2.55). These results are of low certainty due to high imprecision. No secondary outcomes were reported for people requiring rescue medication or to undergo surgery. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is low-certainty evidence that tacrolimus may be superior to placebo for achievement of clinical remission and clinical improvement in corticosteroid-refractory colitis or corticosteroid-refractory proctitis. The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of tacrolimus compared to ciclosporin for achievement of clinical remission or clinical improvement. There may be no difference between tacrolimus and beclometasone for inducing clinical remission or clinical improvement. The cohorts studied to date were small, with missing data sets, offered short follow-up and the clinical endpoints used were not in line with those suggested by regulatory bodies. Therefore, no clinical practice conclusions can be made. This review highlights the need for further research that targets the relevant clinical questions, uses appropriate trial methodology and reports key findings in a systematic manner that facilitates future integration of findings with current evidence to better inform clinicians and patients. Future studies need to be adequately powered and of pertinent duration so as to capture the efficacy and effectiveness of tacrolimus in the medium to long term. Well-structured efficacy studies need to be followed up by long-term phase 4 extensions to provide key outputs and inform in a real-world setting.

Psychosocial Interventions for the Treatment of Functional Abdominal Pain Disorders in Children: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

Importance: Functional abdominal pain disorders (FAPDs) can severely affect the life of children and their families, with symptoms carrying into adulthood. Management of FADP symptoms is also a financial and time burden to clinicians and health care systems. Objective: To systematically review various randomized clinical trials (RCTs) on the outcomes of cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT), educational support, yoga, hypnotherapy, gut-directed hypnotherapy, guided imagery, and relaxation in the management of FAPDs. Data Sources: PubMed, MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, and Cochrane Library. Study Selection: All RCTs that compared psychosocial interventions with any control or no intervention, for children aged 4 to 18 years with FAPDs. Data Extraction and Synthesis: Pairs of the authors independently extracted data of all included studies, using a predesigned data extraction sheet. One author acted as arbitrator. Risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane risk of bias tool, and certainty of the evidence for all primary outcomes was analyzed using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations (GRADE) framework. Main Outcomes and Measures: Primary outcomes were treatment success, pain frequency, pain intensity, and withdrawal owing to adverse events. Dichotomous outcomes were expressed as risk ratio (RR) with corresponding 95% CIs. Continuous outcomes were expressed as mean difference (MD) or standardized MD with 95% CI. Results: A total of 33 RCTs with 2657 children (median [range] age, 12 [7-17] years; 1726 girls [67.3%]) were included. Twelve studies compared CBT with no intervention, 5 studies compared CBT with educational support, 3 studiescompared yoga with no intervention, 2 studies compared hypnotherapy with no intervention, 2 studies compared gut-directed hypnotherapy with hypnotherapy, and 2 studies compared guided imagery with relaxation. Seven studies evaluated other unique comparisons (eg, visceral osteopathy vs normal osteopathy). Per the GRADE framework, owing to risk of bias, there was moderate certainty in evidence that CBT was associated with higher treatment success numbers (n = 324 children; RR, 2.37; 95% CI 1.30-4.34; number needed to treat [NNT] = 5), lower pain frequency (n = 446 children; RR, -0.36; 95% CI, -0.63 to -0.09), and lower pain intensity (n = 332 children; RR, -0.58; 95% CI, -0.83 to -0.32) than no intervention. Owing to high imprecision, there was low certainty in evidence that there was no difference between CBT and educational support for pain intensity (n = 127 children; MD, -0.36; 95% CI, -0.87 to 0.15). Owing to risk of bias and imprecision, there was low certainty in evidence that hypnotherapy resulted in higher treatment success compared with no intervention (n = 91 children; RR, 2.86; 95% CI, 1.19-6.83; NNT = 5). Owing to risk of bias and imprecision, there was low certainty in evidence that yoga had similar treatment success to no intervention (n = 99 children; RR, 1.09; 95% CI, 0.58-2.08). Conclusions and Relevance: Results of this systematic review and meta-analysis suggest that CBT and hypnotherapy may be considered as a treatment for FAPDs in childhood. Future RCTs should address quality issues to enhance the overall certainty of the results, and studies should consider targeting these interventions toward patients who are more likely to respond.