Evidence map›Paper›PMID 20098462›Full record

ReviewNature reviews. Immunology2010

Surrogate end points in the design of immunotherapy trials: emerging lessons from type 1 diabetes.

Bart O Roep, Mark Peakman

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Nature reviews. Immunology, 2010. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 37 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
37citing papers in PubMed, 2 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.

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

37 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Guideline
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Prioritizing Early Disease Intervention.Therapeutic innovation & regulatory science · 2023
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Interval design to identify the optimal biological dose for immunotherapy.Contemporary clinical trials communications · 2022
    Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Proinsulin C-peptide is an autoantigen in people with type 1 diabetes.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2018
    Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Progress in immune-based therapies for type 1 diabetes.Clinical and experimental immunology · 2013
    Review
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.

Bart O RoepLeiden University Medical Center, National Diabetes Expert Center, Leiden, The Netherlands. boroep@lumc.nl
Mark Peakman

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Approximately 5% of people in developed countries suffer from 1 of approximately 80 classified autoimmune diseases. The sheer scale of the clinical problem captures the interests of health policy makers, academics, funding bodies and pharmaceutical companies in equal measure. In recent decades, immunologists have gained a good understanding of disease pathogenesis, which has led to the development of various potential therapies. The next challenge is to establish which therapies have superior efficacy, sustainability and safety. Therapeutic trials that depend on clinical end points are long lasting and expensive. In this Opinion article we offer a perspective on the future of clinical trial design in which the process is significantly shortened by making greater use of laboratory measures to determine therapeutic outcome.

Indexed as

Clinical Trials as TopicImmunotherapyAnimalsBiomarkersDiabetes Mellitus, Type 1HumansResearch DesignBiomarkers

Identifiers

PMID20098462

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.