Mesalamine vs sulfasalazine: Clinical remission or improvement
It is very uncertain whether mesalamine changes induction of remission (CDAI < 150) or clinical improvement ‐… compared with sulfasalazine (alone or (very low certainty).
What each review found
Include earlier review versions| Finding | Effect | Studies | GRADE certainty |
|---|---|---|---|
Mesalamine vs Sulfasalazine (alone or Induction of remission (CDAI < 150) or clinical improvement ‐ Salofalk (1.5 g/day) · patients with Induction of remission or response in Crohn's disease It is very uncertain whether mesalamine changes induction of remission (CDAI < 150) or clinical improvement ‐… compared with sulfasalazine (alone or (very low certainty). Aminosalicylates for induction of remission or response in Crohn's disease (2016) · Cochrane Headline outcomes only | RR 1.18 [0.82, 1.7] | 1 study · 30 participants | Very low |
Mesalamine vs Sulfasalazine (alone or Induction of remission (CDAI < 150) or clinical improvement ‐ Salofalk (3.0 g/day) · patients with Induction of remission or response in Crohn's disease Mesalamine showed no clear difference in induction of remission (CDAI < 150) or clinical improvement ‐… compared with sulfasalazine (alone or (low certainty). Aminosalicylates for induction of remission or response in Crohn's disease (2016) · Cochrane Headline outcomes only | RR 0.94 [0.75, 1.18] | 1 study · 50 participants | Low |
Findings are shown side by side, never pooled across reviews.
The reviews
| Review | Searched up to | Included studies | AMSTAR 2 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Aminosalicylates for induction of remission or response in Crohn's disease 2016 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only | Not reported | list not extracted yet | Not assessed |
Studies behind the findings
None of these reviews ties its included studies to this outcome in the data here. Cochrane reviews and reviews with headline outcomes only do not list their studies yet.
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.