ReviewCurrent opinion in rheumatology2013
New methods for determining comparative effectiveness in rheumatoid arthritis.
Review in Current opinion in rheumatology, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purpose of reviewTo provide an overview of recently published articles describing or applying newer methods for evaluating comparative effectiveness research (CER) in rheumatoid arthritis (RA). RECENT
findingsHistorically, clinical trials in RA have compared newer therapies against placebo. Newer trials designed to increase the relevance of trial results to real-world settings include head-to-head comparisons, some that incorporate noninferiority, factorial and crossover designs. Extensions of traditional meta-analysis through network meta-analysis can combine direct and indirect evidence together and can compare multiple treatments with each other.Observational data used to support CER include disease registries, administrative claims data and electronic medical records. Pooling and linking across these data sources and applying newer epidemiologic methods to analyse such data can provide more valid inferences regarding optimal treatment regimens for RA. SUMMARY: CER methods in RA include head-to-head clinical trials, advanced techniques to summarize and aggregate data across studies, enrich the data available in observational settings and enhance the methods used for analysis. Efforts to continue to apply and improve these methodologies will address key needs of clinicians, patients and health policy decision-makers to generate evidence regarding real-world risks and benefits.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.