Evidence map›Paper›PMID 17592647›Full record

ArticleTrials2007

Outcome measurement in clinical trials for Ulcerative Colitis: towards standardisation.

Rachel M Cooney, Bryan F Warren, Douglas G Altman, Maria T Abreu, Simon P L Travis

Registry-linked trialAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Trials, 2007. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT03656627 (Safety, Activity, and Pharmacology of Nivolumab in Patients With Advanced Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer and Pre-existing Autoimmune Disease), which is not on this map. Cited by 44 papers, 5 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
44citing papers in PubMed, 5 pooled it
–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.

NCT03656627 phase1terminatednot on this mapstarted 2019, after this paper: background citation

Safety, Activity, and Pharmacology of Nivolumab in Patients With Advanced Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer and Pre-existing Autoimmune Disease

TypeinterventionalSponsorAlliance Foundation Trials, LLC.Ran2019 to 2021Enrolled7ConditionsAutoimmune Diseases, Non-small Cell Lung Cancer, Rheumatoid Arthritis, PsoriasisArmsNivolumab
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

44 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Trial
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  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

5 authors.

Rachel M CooneyGastroenterology Unit, John Radcliffe Hospital, Oxford, OX3 9DU, UK. rachel.cooney@clinical-medicine.oxford.ac.uk
Bryan F Warren
Douglas G Altman
Maria T Abreu
Simon P L Travis

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Clinical trials on novel drug therapies require clear criteria for patient selection and agreed definitions of disease remission. This principle has been successfully applied in the field of rheumatology where agreed disease scoring systems have allowed multi-centre collaborations and facilitated audit across treatment centres. Unfortunately in ulcerative colitis this consensus is lacking. Thirteen scoring systems have been developed but none have been properly validated. Most trials choose different endpoints and activity indices, making comparison of results from different trials extremely difficult. International consensus on endoscopic, clinical and histological scoring systems is essential as these are the key components used to determine entry criteria and outcome measurements in clinical trials on ulcerative colitis. With multiple new therapies under development, there is a pressing need for consensus to be reached.

Identifiers

PMID17592647
PMCPMC1919394

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

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.