Evidence map›Paper›PMID 17540047›Full record

ReviewArthritis research & therapy2007

Aspects of early arthritis. Biological therapy in early arthritis--overtreatment or the way to go?

Kei Ikeda, Sally Cox, Paul Emery

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Arthritis research & therapy, 2007. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

12 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Biological tapering and sonographic flare in rheumatoid arthritis.Journal of investigative medicine : the official publication of the American Federation for Clinical Research · 2018
    Observational
  6. Observational
  7. Article
  8. Is there a place for nonbiological drugs in the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis?Therapeutic advances in musculoskeletal disease · 2010
    Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. 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

3 authors.

Kei IkedaAcademic Unit of Musculoskeletal Disease, Leeds University, Chapel Allerton Hospital, Chapeltown Road, Leeds LS7 4SA, UK.
Sally Cox
Paul Emery

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The availability of newer, and more expensive, therapies for patients with rheumatoid arthritis has changed treatment beyond recognition. Disease remission is the goal for all new patients. Studies have shown that a combination of tumour necrosis factor (TNF)-blocking drugs and methotrexate produces superior outcomes over monotherapy alone; however, use is limited by cost and potential side-effects. Currently, anti-TNF therapy is normally reserved for patients who have failed traditional disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs. The question that remains is whether TNF-blocking drugs are better used if given early; the high direct costs are countered by both direct and indirect savings in healthcare costs from optimal control of disease, and the benefits of early control outweigh the increased risk of infection and malignancy.

Indexed as

Early DiagnosisAntirheumatic AgentsArthritis, RheumatoidHumansTumor Necrosis Factor-alphaAntirheumatic AgentsTumor Necrosis Factor-alpha

Identifiers

PMID17540047
PMCPMC2206357

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.