Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26299472›Full record

SynthesisClinical rheumatology2015

The evidence for immunotherapy in dermatomyositis and polymyositis: a systematic review.

Erin Vermaak, Sarah L Tansley, Neil J McHugh

Abstract readSystematic Review
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Clinical rheumatology, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing papers in PubMed
2.2field-weighted citation impact, top 13% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

12 citing papers in PubMed, 31 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Pharmacological Strategies in Dermatomyositis: Current Treatments and Future Directions.Medical science monitor : international medical journal of experimental and clinical research · 2024
    Review
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Observational
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Autoantibodies in myositis.Nature reviews. Rheumatology · 2018
    Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Selected aspects of the current management of myositis.Therapeutic advances in musculoskeletal disease · 2016
    Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Erin VermaakRoyal National Hospital for Rheumatic Diseases, Upper Borough Walls, Bath, BA1 1RL, UK.
Sarah L TansleyRoyal National Hospital for Rheumatic Diseases, Upper Borough Walls, Bath, BA1 1RL, UK. S.L.Tansley@bath.ac.uk.
Neil J McHughRoyal National Hospital for Rheumatic Diseases, Upper Borough Walls, Bath, BA1 1RL, UK.
Royal National Hospital for Rheumatic Diseases · GBUniversity of Bath · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Dermatomyositis and polymyositis are rare chronic inflammatory disorders with significant associated morbidity and mortality despite treatment. High-dose corticosteroids in addition to other interventions such as immunosuppressants, immunomodulators, and more recently, biologics are commonly used in clinical practice; however, there are no clear guidelines directing their use. Our objective was to systematically review the evidence for immunotherapy in the treatment of dermatomyositis and polymyositis. Relevant studies were identified through Embase and PubMed database searches. Trials were selected using pre-determined selection criteria and then assessed for quality. Randomized controlled trials and experimental studies without true randomization and including adult patients with definite or probable dermatomyositis or polymyositis were evaluated. Any type of immunotherapy was considered. Clinical improvement, judged by assessment of muscle strength after 6 months, was the primary outcome. Secondary outcomes included IMACS definition of improvement, improvements in patient and physician global scores, physical function, and muscle enzymes. Twelve studies met eligibility criteria. Differences in trial design, quality, and variable reporting of baseline characteristics and outcomes made direct comparison impossible. Although no treatment can be recommended on the basis of this review, improved outcomes were demonstrated with a number of agents including methotrexate, azathioprine, ciclosporin, rituximab, and intravenous immunoglobulin. Plasmapheresis and leukapheresis were of no apparent benefit. More high-quality randomized controlled trials are needed to establish the role of immunosuppressive agents in the treatment of these conditions and the clinical context in which they are most likely to be beneficial.

Indexed as

LeukapheresisPlasmapheresisAdrenal Cortex HormonesAzathioprineBiological ProductsCyclosporineDermatomyositisEvidence-Based MedicineHumansImmunoglobulins, IntravenousImmunologic FactorsImmunosuppressive AgentsMethotrexatePolymyositisPractice Guidelines as TopicRituximabAdrenal Cortex HormonesAzathioprineBiological ProductsCyclosporineImmunoglobulins, IntravenousImmunologic FactorsImmunosuppressive AgentsMethotrexateRituximabDermatomyositisDMARDImmunotherapyPolymyositisRandomised controlled trialSystematic review

Identifiers

PMID26299472
OpenAlexW1702324418

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.