SynthesisBMC gastroenterology2025
Comprehensive assessment beyond eosinophils in eosinophilic esophagitis: an updated network meta-analysis.
Synthesis in BMC gastroenterology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThe rapid development of therapies for eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE), particularly involving biologics and small molecules, has prompted questions about their roles within current treatment algorithms. We aimed to examine the relative efficacy of novel biologics, small molecules and topical steroids by evaluating clinical, endoscopic, and histological improvements.
methodsWe searched MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and major conference databases for articles published from inception to Jul 1, 2024. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating the clinical, endoscopic and histological efficacy of novel biologics, small molecules or topical steroids as induction therapies for patients with EoE were included. A network meta-analysis (NMA) was performed to obtain effect size-risk ratio (RR), mean difference (MD), standardized mean difference (SMD)-with 95% confidence interval (CI) for different outcomes. The surface under the cumulative ranking (SUCRA) was estimated to present the relative ranking of treatment. The primary outcome was the induction of symptomatic improvement. The secondary outcomes were endoscopic improvement and histological remission. Higher SUCRA curve rankings indicate a greater probability of superior treatment efficacy. The review was registered in PROSPERO (CRD420251155393).
resultsOur search strategy identified 409 records, of which 18 trials (total n = 2,506 patients) were eligible for inclusion. From 12 trials that assessed the induction of clinical improvement, Dupilumab 300 mg weekly (qw) ranked first (SMD -0.57, 95%CI [-0.79, -0.35]), while Dupilumab 300mg every 2 weeks (q2w) ranked relatively low. From 12 randomized controlled trials evaluating endoscopic improvement, Dupilumab 300 mg qw (MD -2.10, 95%CI [-2.49,-1.90]) and 300 mg q2w (MD -1.87, 95%CI [-2.25, -1.48])ranked second and fourth, respectively. In 17 RCTs assessing the induction of histological remission, Budesonide orally disintegrating tablet (BODT) ranked highest(RR 30.77, 95%CI [6.63, 294.95]), whereas Dupilumab (qw/q2w) showed moderate effectiveness.
conclusionsThis study suggests that Dupilumab 300mg qw might be the best performing agent for induction of clinical improvement (the primary endpoint) and BODT might be the most efficacious agents for histological and endoscopic improvement (the secondary endpoint). This could provide evidence for clinical therapy strategy for EoE patients.
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.