Medicine · 2025
Efficacy of polyphenols in adjuvant treating ulcerative colitis: A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.
СтатьяМетаанализСистематический обзорНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Wang Qiuxiang, Li Liuying, Zhuang Shuhan, Huang Mei, Xiang Yongguo
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: The effectiveness and safety of polyphenols in treating ulcerative colitis remain controversial. This study aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of polyphenols in the treatment of ulcerative colitis.
METHODS: This study followed the preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses 2020 guidelines. A systematic search was conducted across PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane databases to identify relevant articles. The random-effects model was employed to calculate the odds ratio (OR) and corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CIs).
RESULTS: A total of 13 trials involving 742 participants were included in the meta-analysis. The clinical remission rates were higher in the polyphenol group compared to the control group, as demonstrated by both the intention-to-treat (ITT) (OR: 4.71; 95% CI: 2.02-10.99; P = .000) and per-protocol (PP) analysis (OR: 7.14; 95% CI: 3.11-16.39; P = .000). Similarly, the clinical response rate was higher in the polyphenol group compared to the control group, according to the ITT (OR: 5.40; 95% CI: 2.60-11.24; P = .000) and PP analysis (OR: 9.14; 95% CI: 4.25-19.64; P = .000). Moreover, the total endoscopic remission rate was superior in the polyphenol group, as indicated by the ITT (OR: 3.16; 95% CI: 1.20-8.37; P = .020) and PP analysis (OR: 4.92; 95% CI: 2.03-11.93; P = .000). No significant differences were observed regarding side effects between the 2 groups, according to the ITT (OR: 0.99; 95% CI: 0.56-1.76; P = .973) and PP analysis (OR: 0.99; 95% CI: 0.54-1.80; P = .971).
CONCLUSION: Polyphenols demonstrated effectiveness in inducing clinical remission, clinical response, and endoscopic remission in patients with ulcerative colitis. Furthermore, there was no evidence of a higher incidence of adverse effects associated with their use.
METHODS: This study followed the preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses 2020 guidelines. A systematic search was conducted across PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane databases to identify relevant articles. The random-effects model was employed to calculate the odds ratio (OR) and corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CIs).
RESULTS: A total of 13 trials involving 742 participants were included in the meta-analysis. The clinical remission rates were higher in the polyphenol group compared to the control group, as demonstrated by both the intention-to-treat (ITT) (OR: 4.71; 95% CI: 2.02-10.99; P = .000) and per-protocol (PP) analysis (OR: 7.14; 95% CI: 3.11-16.39; P = .000). Similarly, the clinical response rate was higher in the polyphenol group compared to the control group, according to the ITT (OR: 5.40; 95% CI: 2.60-11.24; P = .000) and PP analysis (OR: 9.14; 95% CI: 4.25-19.64; P = .000). Moreover, the total endoscopic remission rate was superior in the polyphenol group, as indicated by the ITT (OR: 3.16; 95% CI: 1.20-8.37; P = .020) and PP analysis (OR: 4.92; 95% CI: 2.03-11.93; P = .000). No significant differences were observed regarding side effects between the 2 groups, according to the ITT (OR: 0.99; 95% CI: 0.56-1.76; P = .973) and PP analysis (OR: 0.99; 95% CI: 0.54-1.80; P = .971).
CONCLUSION: Polyphenols demonstrated effectiveness in inducing clinical remission, clinical response, and endoscopic remission in patients with ulcerative colitis. Furthermore, there was no evidence of a higher incidence of adverse effects associated with their use.