ArticleExperimental neurology2015
How clinical trials of myasthenia gravis can inform pre-clinical drug development.
Article in Experimental neurology, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 13 citations in OpenAlex.
- Initiation response, maximized therapeutic efficacy, and post-treatment effects of biological targeted therapies in myasthenia gravis: a systematic review and network meta-analysis.Frontiers in neurology · 2024Pooled it
- Pharmacotherapy of Generalized Myasthenia Gravis with Special Emphasis on Newer Biologicals.Drugs · 2022Review
- Systematic review of guidelines for internal validity in the design, conduct and analysis of preclinical biomedical experiments involving laboratory animals.BMJ open science · 2020Article
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
Pre-clinical evaluations often provide the rationale for therapeutic assessments in humans; however, in many diseases an agent found successful in animal models does not show efficacy in human subjects. Our contention is that the approach of rigorous, clinical trials can be used to inform how preclinical assessments should be performed. Clinical trials in humans are carefully designed investigations executed with consideration of critical methodological issues, such as pre-specified entrance criteria and validated, outcome measures coupled with power analysis to identify sample size. Blinding of evaluators of subjective measures and randomization of subjects are also critical aspects of trial performance. Investigative agents are also tested in subjects with active disease, rather than prior to disease induction as in some pre-clinical assessments. Application of standard procedures, including uniform reporting standards, would likely assist in reproducibility of pre-clinical experiments. Adapting methods of clinical trial performance will likely improve the success rate of therapeutics to ultimately achieve human use.
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.