Probiotics vs 5‐aminosalicylic acid (5‐ASA) (mesalazine): Serious adverse events
- Population
- people with active UC
- Intervention
- Probiotics
- Comparison
- 5‐aminosalicylic acid (5‐ASA) (mesalazine)
- Outcome
- Serious adverse events
It is very uncertain whether probiotics changes serious adverse events compared with 5‐aminosalicylic acid (5‐ASA) (mesalazine) (very low certainty).
What each review found
Include earlier review versions| Finding | Effect | Studies | GRADE certainty |
|---|---|---|---|
Probiotics vs 5‐aminosalicylic acid (5‐ASA) (mesalazine) Serious adverse events · people with active ulcerative colitis It is very uncertain whether probiotics changes serious adverse events compared with 5‐aminosalicylic acid (5‐ASA) (mesalazine) (very low certainty). Probiotics for induction of remission in ulcerative colitis (2020) · Cochrane Headline outcomes only | RR 0.21 [0.01, 4.22] | 1 study · 116 participants | Very low |
Findings are shown side by side, never pooled across reviews.
The reviews
| Review | Searched up to | Included studies | AMSTAR 2 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Probiotics for induction of remission in ulcerative colitis 2020 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only | Not reported | Not extracted | Not assessed |
Related questions
The same intervention and outcome, asked in another population or against another comparator.
- Probiotics vs placebo · adult patients after liver transplantation. · 1 review
- Probiotics vs placebo · people with active UC · 1 review
- Probiotics vs placebo · children with Hirschsprung's disease (HD) · 1 review
- Probiotics vs placebo · children with chronic constipation without a physical explanation · 1 review
- Probiotics vs control · patients with acute pancreatitis · 1 review
- Probiotics vs placebo · children (4 to 18 years) with functional abdominal pain disorders · 1 review
- Probiotics vs magnesium oxide · children with chronic constipation without a physical explanation · 1 review
How reviews are matched to this question
Reviews word the same question differently. Four decision models (TypeSafe's Jev, Liquid AI's d1-ultra, SubQ Snap and Baseten's Elephant) judged each wording of the population, intervention, comparator and outcome against the others; two wordings count as the same when at least three of them agree and none clearly disagrees, and findings count as this question only when all four elements match. Timing, setting and subgroup never split a question: they are shown on each finding.