Appendix Table : Results of sensitivity analysis of network meta-analysis using alternate cut points for the dosing of mesalamine and budesonide for the induction of remission of patients with Crohn’s disease Intervention COMPARATOR Odds ratio (95% Credible interval)* Probability intervention superior to comparator Placebo <2g Mesalamine 2-4g Mesalamine >4g Mesalamine 3 or 6mg Budesonide 9mg Budesonide 15 or 18mg Budesonide Sulfasalazine <2g Mesalamine 1.22 (0.46, 3.13) 66% - 2-4g Mesalamine 2.01* (1.24, 3.38) >99% 1.65 (0.69, 4.13) 88% - >4g Mesalamine 1.84 (0.75, 3.99) 92% 1.52 (0.41, 4.91) 75% 0.92 (0.34, 2.09) 42% - 3 or 6mg Budesonide 1.53 (0.69, 3.28) 86% 1.26 (0.37, 4.07) 65% 0.76 (0.31, 1.78) 26% 0.83 (0.31, 2.42) 36% - 9mg Budesonide 3.03* (1.85, 4.73) >99% 2.49 (0.89, 6.85) 96% 1.51 (0.83, 2.54) 92% 1.64 (0.82, 3.60) 93% 1.97 (0.95, 4.12) 97% - 15 or 18mg Budesonide 3.36* (1.63, 6.83) >99% 2.76 (0.87, 9.01) 96% 1.66 (0.73, 3.73) 89% 1.83 (0.72, 5.22) 90% 2.18* (1.02, 4.80) 98% 1.11 (0.58, 2.17) 63% - Sulfasalazine 1.53 1.26 0.76 0.83 1.00 0.50 0.46 -
(0.76, 3.01) 89% (0.40, 3.94) 66% (0.33, 1.65) 24% (0.32, 2.38) 35% (0.37, 2.73) 50% (0.24, 1.07) 4% (0.18, 1.18) 5% Corticosteroids 3.72* (2.24, 5.89) >99% 3.05* (1.09, 8.41) 98% 1.84* (1.03, 3.17) 98% 2.01 (0.97, 4.66) 97% 2.42* (1.08, 5.51) 98% 1.22 (0.83, 1.84) 86% 1.11 (0.52, 2.29) 61% 2.44* (1.21, 4.82) >99% Appendix Table : Results of sensitivity analysis of network meta-analysis using combined doses of mesalamine and budesonide for the induction of remission of patients with Crohn’s disease Intervention COMPARATOR Odds ratio (95% Credible interval)* Placebo Mesalamine Sulfasalazine Budesonide Mesalamine 1.84* (1.25, 2.77) >99% - Sulfasalazine 1.52 (0.82, 2.68) 92% 0.83 (0.42, 1.57) 26% - Budesonide 2.90* (1.98, 4.30) >99% 1.57* (1.06, 2.32) 99% 1.91* (1.04, 3.61) 98% - Corticosteroid 3.57* (2.40, 5.41) >99% 1.94* (1.28, 2.90) >99% 2.35* (1.34, 4.31) >99% 1.23 (0.88, 1.73) 90% Appendix Table : Results of sensitivity analysis of network meta-analysis using only studies which define lower and upper limits for CDAI ranges (i.e., CDAI 150-40) for the induction of remission of patients with Crohn’s disease Intervention COMPARATOR
Study selection 17 Give numbers of studies screened, assessed for eligibility, and included in the review, with reasons for exclusions at each stage, ideally with a flow diagram. 12 (Figure 1) Study characteristics 18 For each study, present characteristics for which data were extracted (e.g., study size, PICOS, follow-up period) and provide the citations. 12 (Table 1) Risk of bias within studies 19 Present data on risk of bias of each study and, if available, any outcome level assessment (see item 12). 12 (Appendix Table 2) Results of individual studies 20 For all outcomes considered (benefits or harms), present, for each study: (a) simple summary data for each intervention group (b) effect estimates and confidence intervals, ideally with a forest plot. (Table 1) Synthesis of results 21 Present results of each meta-analysis done, including confidence intervals and measures of consistency. 13 and 14 (Table 2 and 3) Risk of bias across studies 22 Present results of any assessment of risk of bias across studies (see Item 15). 12 and 15 (Appendix Table 2) Additional analysis 23 Give results of additional analyses, if done (e.g., sensitivity or subgroup analyses, meta-regression [see Item 16]). 13 and 14 (Appendix Table 3 - 6) DISCUSSION Summary of evidence 24 Summarize the main findings including the strength of evidence for each main outcome; consider their relevance to key groups (e.g., healthcare providers, users, and policy makers). 14 Limitations 25 Discuss limitations at study and outcome level (e.g., risk of bias), and at review-level (e.g., incomplete retrieval of identified research, reporting bias). 16 Conclusions 26 Provide a general interpretation of the results in the context of other evidence, and implications for future research. 16 FUNDING Funding 27 Describe sources of funding for the systematic review and other support (e.g., supply of data); role of funders for the systematic review. 2