ReviewClinical and experimental rheumatology
Use of data from multiple registries in studying biologic discontinuation: challenges and opportunities.
Review in Clinical and experimental rheumatology. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Retention of subcutaneous abatacept for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis: real-world results from the ASCORE study: an international 2-year observational study.Clinical rheumatology · 2022Observational
- Review
- Real-Life Retention Rates and Reasons for Switching of Biological DMARDs in Rheumatoid Arthritis, Psoriatic Arthritis, and Ankylosing Spondylitis.Frontiers in medicine · 2021Article
- Predictors of abatacept retention over 2 years in patients with rheumatoid arthritis: results from the real-world ACTION study.Clinical rheumatology · 2019Observational
- Recognition of early mortality in multiple myeloma by a prediction matrix.American journal of hematology · 2017Observational
- Subjective health expectations at biological therapy initiation: a survey of rheumatoid arthritis patients and rheumatologists.The European journal of health economics : HEPAC : health economics in prevention and care · 2014Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Many studies have been conducted concerning discontinuation of biologic disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (DMARD), but mainly in trial settings which result in limited generalisability. Registry studies can complement the current literature of biologic DMARD discontinuation by providing more generalisable information. However, it may be necessary to combine registries to increase power and provide more diverse patient populations. This increased power could provide us information about risk and benefits of discontinuing biologic DMARD in typical clinical practice. However, use of multiple registries is not without challenges. In this review, we discuss the challenges to combining data across multiple registries, focusing on biologic discontinuation as an example. Challenges include: 1) generalizability of each registry; 2) new versus prevalent users designs; 3) outcome definitions; 4) different health care systems; 5) different follow up intervals; and 6) data harmonisation. The first three apply to each registry, and the last three apply to combining multiple registries. This review describes these challenges, corresponding solutions, and potential future opportunities.
Indexed as
Identifiers
24129133PMC4843121What 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.