SynthesisAnnals of the rheumatic diseases2001
Reporting of outcomes in arthritis trials measured on ordinal and interval scales is inadequate in relation to meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Annals of the rheumatic diseases, 2001. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 5 of them syntheses that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
7 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Discontinuation rates in clinical trials in musculoskeletal pain: meta-analysis from etoricoxib clinical trial reports.Arthritis research & therapy · 2008Pooled it
- Indirect comparison of interventions using published randomised trials: systematic review of PDE-5 inhibitors for erectile dysfunction.BMC urology · 2005Pooled it
- Tolerability and adverse events in clinical trials of celecoxib in osteoarthritis and rheumatoid arthritis: systematic review and meta-analysis of information from company clinical trial reports.Arthritis research & therapy · 2005Pooled it
- Systematic review of efficacy of topical rubefacients containing salicylates for the treatment of acute and chronic pain.BMJ (Clinical research ed.) · 2004Pooled it
- Systematic review of topical capsaicin for the treatment of chronic pain.BMJ (Clinical research ed.) · 2004Pooled it
- Biologic agents in rheumatology: unmet issues after 200 trials and $200 billion sales.Nature reviews. Rheumatology · 2013Review
- Large scale evidence and replication: insights from rheumatology and beyond.Annals of the rheumatic diseases · 2005Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo study whether the reporting of clinical outcomes in arthritis trials measured on ordinal and interval scales is adequate in relation to meta-analysis.
methodsSystematic review of randomised trials of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs in patients with rheumatoid arthritis. Optimal reporting was defined as data in the original ordered categories for global evaluation and pain, and as mean and SD for number of tender joints and grip strength, and if a visual analogue scale had been used to measure pain.
resultsA total of 144 trials were included. The median sample size was 60 patients. The quality of the reporting increased over time for three of the four variables. Global evaluation was optimally reported in 52 of the 127 trials (41%) in which it was recorded. Pain was optimally reported in 27 of 98 trials (28%), number of tender joints in 41 of 123 trials (33%), and grip strength in 34 of 124 trials (27%). Even if rather broad criteria are adopted, only about half of the data were reported in a potentially useful way for a meta-analysis.
conclusionsArthritis trials have been reported inadequately in relation to meta-analysis. As most trials are underpowered, meta-analysis is indispensable and the deficit therefore needs urgent improvement. Investigators should specify a priori what constitutes an important treatment effect and report numbers of patients improved.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.