Mesalamine (4 ‐ 4.5 g/day) vs budesonide: Induction of clinical remission (CDAI < or = 150)
Mesalamine (4 ‐ 4.5 g/day) may leads to lower induction of remission (CDAI < or = 150) ‐ Pentasa (4 g/day) compared with budesonide (low certainty).
What each review found
Include earlier review versions| Finding | Effect | Studies | GRADE certainty |
|---|---|---|---|
Mesalamine (4 ‐ 4.5 g/day) vs Budesonide Induction of remission (CDAI < or = 150) ‐ Pentasa (4 g/day) · patients with Induction of remission or response in Crohn's disease Mesalamine (4 ‐ 4.5 g/day) may leads to lower induction of remission (CDAI < or = 150) ‐ Pentasa (4 g/day) compared with budesonide (low certainty). Aminosalicylates for induction of remission or response in Crohn's disease (2016) · Cochrane Headline outcomes only | RR 0.56 [0.4, 0.78] | 1 study · 182 participants | Low |
Mesalamine (4 ‐ 4.5 g/day) vs Budesonide Induction of remission (CDAI < or = 150) ‐ Salofalk (4.5 g/day) · patients with Induction of remission or response in Crohn's disease Mesalamine (4 ‐ 4.5 g/day) showed no clear difference in induction of remission (CDAI < or = 150) ‐ Salofalk (4.5 g/day) compared with budesonide (moderate certainty). Aminosalicylates for induction of remission or response in Crohn's disease (2016) · Cochrane Headline outcomes only | RR 0.89 [0.76, 1.05] | 1 study · 307 participants | Moderate |
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.