Evidence map›Paper›PMID 15708943›Full record

ReviewAnnals of the rheumatic diseases2005

Psoriatic arthritis therapy: NSAIDs and traditional DMARDs.

P Nash, D O Clegg

Open access · bronzeAbstract readReview
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Annals of the rheumatic diseases, 2005. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 38 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
38citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
6.9field-weighted citation impact, top 3% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

38 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 126 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Observational
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Observational
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Review
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

P NashRheumatology Research Unit, Nambour Hospital, Sunshine Coast, University of Queensland, Australia. pnash@tpg.com.au
D O Clegg
Nambour General Hospital · AUUniversity of Utah · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) and traditional disease modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) are widely used in the treatment of psoriatic arthritis (PsA), but this is based more upon clinical experience than adequate evidence from clinical trials. This report summarises the results from available trials highlighting evidence of efficacy and deficiencies with respect to effect on joints and to a lesser degree cutaneous disease. The available published data on efficacy of NSAIDs, glucocorticoids, antimalarials, sulfasalazine, gold, methotrexate, azathioprine, and ciclosporin are detailed, as well as new data on leflunomide and other novel agents. The conclusions of this review are that evidence supports marginal efficacy of sulfasalazine and perhaps gold in the treatment of peripheral psoriatic arthropathy, and methotrexate and ciclosporin are effective for treating the skin disease although evidence for improvement of the arthropathy is empirical at best. New trials with standardised and validated outcome measures are required to better assess efficacy. Evaluating newer agents, against and in combination with traditional DMARDS, may further clarify the latter's role in the future management of this condition.

Indexed as

Anti-Inflammatory Agents, Non-SteroidalAntirheumatic AgentsArthritis, PsoriaticGlucocorticoidsHumansTreatment OutcomeAnti-Inflammatory Agents, Non-SteroidalAntirheumatic AgentsGlucocorticoids

Identifiers

PMID15708943
PMCPMC1766880
OpenAlexW2129412734

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.