ReviewBMJ open gastroenterology2026
Optimising clinical trial design choices in inflammatory bowel disease.
Review in BMJ open gastroenterology, 2026. 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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The success of inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) clinical trials is strongly influenced by study design and disease-specific operational challenges. Over the past decade, however, IBD clinical trials face slow enrolment, poor retention, accumulating costs and limited representativeness. Trials are further constrained by protocol and operational complexity, financial pressures and regulatory requirements. Carefully selected and optimised trial designs may address the inherent challenges of IBD research and should take into account the patient profiles under investigation, mode of action and speed of onset of effect of the investigational product, among other factors. This narrative review discusses four key study design strategies for IBD clinical trials, including treat-through maintenance, responder re-randomisation, Master Protocol approaches (basket, umbrella and platform trials) and Bayesian methodologies. Treat-through maintenance designs are effective at evaluating sustained efficacy and real-world durability, whereas responder re-randomisation approaches are widely used in drug registration programmes to distinguish induction and maintenance effects for regulator clarity. Master Protocol designs may improve efficiency and reduce placebo exposure, while trials using Bayesian methodologies can strengthen interpretation of efficacy and safety outcomes, particularly in early-phase or complex studies. Key considerations within protocols include the use of co-primary endpoints, selection of secondary/exploratory endpoints, control group design and integrating digital health technologies, among others. Strategic application of innovative methodologies can improve trial delivery and enhance data robustness and interpretability, thus supporting more efficient development of effective therapies for patients with IBD.
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.