Evidence map›Paper›PMID 21079644›Full record

ReviewNature reviews. Rheumatology2011

Pharmacologic therapy for osteoarthritis--the era of disease modification.

David J Hunter

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Nature reviews. Rheumatology, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 132 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
132citing papers in PubMed, 3 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

132 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Diacerein for osteoarthritis.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2014
    Pooled it
  4. Trial
  5. A Combination ofInternational journal of medical sciences · 2019
    Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Trial
  8. Trial
  9. Trial
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

72 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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

1 author.

David J HunterRheumatology Department and Northern Clinical School, Royal North Shore Hospital, St Leonards, NSW 2065, Australia. david.hunter@sydney.edu.au

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Osteoarthritis (OA) is a prevalent and disabling condition for which few safe and effective therapeutic options are available. Current approaches are largely palliative and in an effort to mitigate the rising tide of increasing OA prevalence and disease impact, modifying the structural progression of OA has become a focus of drug development. This Review describes disease modification and discusses some of the challenges involved in the discovery and development of disease-modifying OA drugs (DMOADs). A variety of targeted agents are in mature phases of development; specific agents that are beyond preclinical development in phase II and III trials and show promise as potential DMOADs are discussed. A research agenda with respect to disease modification in OA is also provided, and some of the future challenges we face in this field are discussed.

Indexed as

Antirheumatic AgentsBiomechanical PhenomenaDisease ProgressionDrug TherapyHumansOsteoarthritisTreatment OutcomeAntirheumatic Agents

Identifiers

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.