ReviewZeitschrift fur Rheumatologie2011
[Is it possible to compare different studies on efficacy of biologicals in patients with rheumatoid arthritis? : mixed treatment comparison as a new tool for indirect comparison of clinical studies].
Review in Zeitschrift fur Rheumatologie, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
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.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Head-to-head studies as randomized, double blind clinical studies are the best method for directly comparing the efficacy of different therapeutic strategies. However, at the moment no such studies are available for biological agents in the treatment of patients with rheumatoid arthritis. Therefore it is only possible to compare different treatment strategies by indirect comparisons, for example by adjusted indirect comparison or mixed treatment comparison (MTC). The MTC is accepted by European authorities as supportive clinical evidence. As with the case of meta-analyses the quality of an indirect comparison is determined by the homogeneity of the studies included in the analysis.A short review of eight published indirect comparisons of the efficacy of biological agents in the treatment of patients with rheumatoid arthritis showed that the results with respect to tumor necrosis factor (TNF) blockers are similar and that there are differences in the efficacy of non-TNF biological agents.
Indexed as
Identifiers
21698473What OpenQuestion holds
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.