19
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: not found
      • Article: not found

      Randomised non-inferiority trial: 1600 mg versus 400 mg tablets of mesalazine for the treatment of mild-to-moderate ulcerative colitis

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPubMed
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Related collections

          Most cited references31

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Interval estimation for the difference between independent proportions: comparison of eleven methods

          Several existing unconditional methods for setting confidence intervals for the difference between binomial proportions are evaluated. Computationally simpler methods are prone to a variety of aberrations and poor coverage properties. The closely interrelated methods of Mee and Miettinen and Nurminen perform well but require a computer program. Two new approaches which also avoid aberrations are developed and evaluated. A tail area profile likelihood based method produces the best coverage properties, but is difficult to calculate for large denominators. A method combining Wilson score intervals for the two proportions to be compared also performs well, and is readily implemented irrespective of sample size.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Ulcerative colitis practice guidelines in adults: American College Of Gastroenterology, Practice Parameters Committee.

            Guidelines for clinical practice are aimed to indicate preferred approaches to medical problems as established by scientifically valid research. Double-blind placebo controlled studies are preferable, but compassionate-use reports and expert review articles are used in a thorough review of the literature conducted through Medline with the National Library of Medicine. When only data that will not withstand objective scrutiny are available, a recommendation is identified as a consensus of experts. Guidelines are applicable to all physicians who address the subject regardless of specialty training or interests and are aimed to indicate the preferable but not necessarily the only acceptable approach to a specific problem. Guidelines are intended to be flexible and must be distinguished from standards of care, which are inflexible and rarely violated. Given the wide range of specifics in any health-care problem, the physician must always choose the course best suited to the individual patient and the variables in existence at the moment of decision. Guidelines are developed under the auspices of the American College of Gastroenterology and its Practice Parameters Committee and approved by the board of trustees. Each has been intensely reviewed and revised by the Committee, other experts in the field, physicians who will use them, and specialists in the science of decision analysis. The recommendations of each guideline are therefore considered valid at the time of composition based on the data available. New developments in medical research and practice pertinent to each guideline will be reviewed at a time established and indicated at publication to assure continued validity. The recommendations made are based on the level of evidence found. Grade A recommendations imply that there is consistent level 1 evidence (randomized controlled trials), grade B indicates that the evidence would be level 2 or 3, which are cohort studies or case-control studies. Grade C recommendations are based on level 4 studies, meaning case series or poor-quality cohort studies, and grade D recommendations are based on level 5 evidence, meaning expert opinion.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              A reproducible grading scale for histological assessment of inflammation in ulcerative colitis.

              Evaluation of histological activity in ulcerative colitis needs to be reproducible but has rarely been tested. This could be useful both clinically and in clinical trials. To develop reproducible criteria which are valid in the assessment of acute inflammation (activity) and chronicity, and to evaluate these features in an interobserver variability study. A six grade classification system for inflammation was developed which could also be fine tuned within each grade. The grades were: 0, structural change only; 1, chronic inflammation; 2, lamina propria neutrophils; 3, neutrophils in epithelium; 4, crypt destruction; and 5, erosions or ulcers. Ninety nine haematoxylin-eosin sections from endoscopically inflamed and non-inflamed mucosa from patients with distal ulcerative colitis were assessed in two separate readings by three pathologists independently and without knowledge of the clinical status. Interobserver agreement was compared pairwise using kappa statistics. Initially, kappa values between the observers were 0.20, 0.42, and 0.26, which are too low to be of value. Following development of a semiquantitative pictorial scale for each criterion, kappa values improved to 0.62, 0.70, and 0.59. For activity defined by neutrophils between epithelial cells, kappa values were 0.903, 1.000, and 0.907. Complete agreement was reached in 64% of samples of endoscopically normal and in 66% of endoscopically inflamed tissue. Neutrophils in epithelium correlated with the presence of crypt destruction and ulceration. A histological activity system was developed for ulcerative colitis that showed good reproducibility and modest agreement with the endoscopic grading system which it complemented. It has potential value both clinically and in clinical trials.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Alimentary Pharmacology & Therapeutics
                Aliment Pharmacol Ther
                Wiley-Blackwell
                02692813
                August 2017
                August 2017
                : 46
                : 3
                : 292-302
                Article
                10.1111/apt.14164
                28568974
                abe44bf3-20db-4b13-a756-8f74c2a7a320
                © 2017

                http://doi.wiley.com/10.1002/tdm_license_1

                History

                Comments

                Comment on this article