RT Journal Article SR Electronic T1 Are we addressing the top 10 research priorities in IBD? JF Frontline Gastroenterology JO Frontline Gastroenterol FD BMJ Publishing Group Ltd SP flgastro-2020-101579 DO 10.1136/flgastro-2020-101579 A1 Jeroen Geldof A1 Jean-Frédéric LeBlanc A1 Laura Lucaciu A1 Jonathan Segal A1 Charlie W Lees A1 Ailsa Hart YR 2020 UL http://fg.bmj.com/content/early/2020/11/10/flgastro-2020-101579.abstract AB Background Since publication of the top 10 research priorities in inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) based on the James Lind Alliance Priority Setting Partnership, the question remains whether this has influenced the IBD-research landscape. This study aimed to create an overview of the current distribution of research interests of trials in the UK.Methods The ClinicalTrials.gov database and European Union Clinical Trials Register were screened for clinical trials set up from 9 August 2016 to 16 November 2019 in the UK involving adult patients with IBD.Results Of 20 non-industry-sponsored studies, a quarter investigated treatment strategies considering efficacy, safety and cost-effectiveness (priority 1). Four evaluated the role of diet (priorities 3 and 7). Development/assessment of biomarkers for patient stratification (priority 2) and fatigue (priority 8) were subject of three studies. IBD-related pain and control of diarrhoea/incontinence were each subject of 2 studies (priorities 4 and 6). The effect of gut microbiota (priority 10) and optimal strategy for perianal Crohn’s disease (priority 5) was the focus of 2 studies each. One study evaluated surgery for terminal ileal Crohn’s disease (priority 9). Of 63 industry-sponsored studies, 59 focused on priority 1.Conclusions This study presents an impression of the breadth of the IBD-research landscape in the UK, in light of the top 10 research priorities published in 2016. Optimal treatment strategy has been the most studied research priority by academic and industry-sponsored trials. Fewer studies focused on patient-reported outcomes. It remains debatable to what extent the current research landscape adequately represents all stakeholders’ viewpoints on needs for expanded knowledge in IBD, particularly the patients’ perspective.