ReviewExpert opinion on biological therapy2014
Immunopharmacotherapy of non-infectious uveitis: where do we stand?
Review in Expert opinion on biological therapy, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- Efficacy and safety of Jiawei Simiaoyongan granules in the treatment of non-infectious anterior uveitis: a randomized open-label trial.Journal of traditional Chinese medicine = Chung i tsa chih ying wen pan · 2026Trial
- Selective decreases in regulatory B-cell (Breg) subsets in active uveitis: IL-10+CD19+CD24hiCD38hiBregs in patients and B10 Bregs in mice.International immunology · 2026Article
- Steroidal nanoformulations for the treatment of uveitis: potential, promises and future perspectives.International ophthalmology · 2024Review
- Antagonist Anti-CD28 Therapeutics for the Treatment of Autoimmune Disorders.Antibodies (Basel, Switzerland) · 2017Review
- Choroidal Vascularity Index (CVI)--A Novel Optical Coherence Tomography Parameter for Monitoring Patients with Panuveitis?PloS one · 2016Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
With ever-evolving concept of personalised medicine backed up with specific biomarkers for ocular inflammatory disease, there is a sudden surge of using biologics in non-infectious recalcitrant posterior uveitis. Have we understood these biologic agents enough to embark on this long enduring journey with the patient to optimise control of intraocular inflammation? On the other hand, there is still a strong inhibition of using these novel agents in management of uveitis even at tertiary referral centres. Immunopharmacotherapy of non-infectious uveitis poses a significant conundrum for both physicians and patients as it is like a two-edged sword effective to control inflammation but at the same time potentially toxic, suspected of causing long-term adverse effects. Systemic immunosuppressive therapy is used in a substantial number of most vision-threatening ocular inflammatory diseases. There is lack of randomised control trials establishing the safety of this therapy and our current practice pattern is based on retrospective studies and personal experience in using this treatment modality. This overview will highlight on the current dilemma faced by the clinicians in opting for steroid-sparing immunosuppressive therapy.
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.