SynthesisAlimentary pharmacology & therapeutics2025
Meta-Analysis: Evaluating Placebo Rates Across Outcomes in Eosinophilic Oesophagitis Randomised Controlled Trials.
Synthesis in Alimentary pharmacology & therapeutics, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- The Therapeutic Pipeline for Eosinophilic Esophagitis: Current Landscape and Future Directions.Pharmaceuticals (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
- Recommendations for the diagnosis and management of eosinophilic esophagitis in adults and children in Canada: a Delphi consensus project.Journal of the Canadian Association of Gastroenterology · 2025Review
- Recommendations for the diagnosis and management of eosinophilic esophagitis in adults and children in Canada: a Delphi consensus project.Allergy, asthma, and clinical immunology : official journal of the Canadian Society of Allergy and Clinical Immunology · 2025Review
- Orally Dispersible Swallowed Topical Corticosteroids in Eosinophilic Esophagitis: A Paradigm Shift in the Management of Esophageal Inflammation.Pharmaceutics · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundHigh placebo responses have limited drug development in eosinophilic oesophagitis. The optimal configuration of trial outcomes is uncertain.
aimsTo inform more efficient future trial designs, to characterise clinical, endoscopic and histologic placebo responses in eosinophilic oesophagitis randomised controlled trials (RCTs).
methodsWe updated a Cochrane systematic review and meta-analysis, searching multiple databases to January 1, 2024, to identify placebo-controlled RCTs evaluating medical therapies for patients with eosinophilic oesophagitis. The primary outcome was the pooled proportion of study-defined clinical, endoscopic and histologic responders and remitters randomised to placebo, using an intention-to-treat approach and random-effects model. Sources of heterogeneity were explored using meta-regression.
resultsWe included 25 RCTs. The pooled proportion of clinical response was 41.0% [95% CI: 29.7%-52.8%] with substantial heterogeneity (I
conclusionsOver 40% of patients in eosinophilic oesophagitis trials respond clinically to placebo, and this is associated with trial design factors such as randomisation ratio and trial population. Objective endoscopic and histologic measures are associated with very low placebo responses.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.