<HashMap><database>biostudies-literature</database><scores/><additional><omics_type>Unknown</omics_type><volume>18</volume><submitter>Hupe M</submitter><pubmed_abstract>&lt;h4>Background&lt;/h4>As no direct comparison is available between drugs to prevent endoscopic postoperative recurrence (POR) in Crohn's disease (CD), hierarchizing these therapeutic options remains challenging.&lt;h4>Objectives&lt;/h4>We aimed to compare the effectiveness of treatments to prevent CD endoscopic POR.&lt;h4>Design&lt;/h4>Systematic review and network meta-analysis using a random-effects model.&lt;h4>Data sources and methods&lt;/h4>We include studies comparing treatments to prevent CD POR according to PRISMA guidelines. The primary endpoint was endoscopic POR (Rutgeerts score ⩾i2). Surface under the cumulative ranking (SUCRA) was used to hierarchize the treatments.&lt;h4>Results&lt;/h4>Twenty studies were included (2414 patients). Overall heterogeneity was moderate (τ = 0.34). Ustekinumab (odds ratio (</pubmed_abstract><journal>Therapeutic advances in gastroenterology</journal><pagination>17562848251374240</pagination><full_dataset_link>https://www.ebi.ac.uk/biostudies/studies/S-EPMC12484893</full_dataset_link><repository>biostudies-literature</repository><pubmed_title>Systematic review and network meta-analysis comparing the efficacy of conventional therapy and biologics to prevent endoscopic postoperative recurrence in patients with Crohn's disease.</pubmed_title><pmcid>PMC12484893</pmcid><pubmed_authors>Pereira B</pubmed_authors><pubmed_authors>Buisson A</pubmed_authors><pubmed_authors>Hupe M</pubmed_authors></additional><is_claimable>false</is_claimable><name>Systematic review and network meta-analysis comparing the efficacy of conventional therapy and biologics to prevent endoscopic postoperative recurrence in patients with Crohn's disease.</name><description>&lt;h4>Background&lt;/h4>As no direct comparison is available between drugs to prevent endoscopic postoperative recurrence (POR) in Crohn's disease (CD), hierarchizing these therapeutic options remains challenging.&lt;h4>Objectives&lt;/h4>We aimed to compare the effectiveness of treatments to prevent CD endoscopic POR.&lt;h4>Design&lt;/h4>Systematic review and network meta-analysis using a random-effects model.&lt;h4>Data sources and methods&lt;/h4>We include studies comparing treatments to prevent CD POR according to PRISMA guidelines. The primary endpoint was endoscopic POR (Rutgeerts score ⩾i2). Surface under the cumulative ranking (SUCRA) was used to hierarchize the treatments.&lt;h4>Results&lt;/h4>Twenty studies were included (2414 patients). Overall heterogeneity was moderate (τ = 0.34). Ustekinumab (odds ratio (</description><dates><release>2025-01-01T00:00:00Z</release><publication>2025</publication><modification>2026-06-04T02:23:13.944Z</modification><creation>2026-05-04T03:13:08.101Z</creation></dates><accession>S-EPMC12484893</accession><cross_references><pubmed>41041281</pubmed><doi>10.1177/17562848251374240</doi></cross_references></HashMap>