Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26356639›Full record

SynthesisPloS one2015

Comparing Effects of Biologic Agents in Treating Patients with Rheumatoid Arthritis: A Multiple Treatment Comparison Regression Analysis.

Ingunn Fride Tvete, Bent Natvig, Jørund Gåsemyr, Nils Meland, Marianne Røine, Marianne Klemp

Erratum issuedOpen access · goldAbstract readComparative StudyMeta-Analysis
In one paragraph

Synthesis in PloS one, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 12 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing papers in PubMed, 4 pooled it
3.2field-weighted citation impact, top 9% 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, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 17 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Review
  6. Cycling of tumor necrosis factor inhibitorsTherapeutic advances in musculoskeletal disease · 2021
    Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.

Ingunn Fride TveteThe Norwegian Computing Center, Oslo, Norway.
Bent NatvigDepartment of Mathematics, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway.
Jørund GåsemyrDepartment of Mathematics, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway.
Nils MelandSmerud Medical Research International AS, Oslo, Norway.
Marianne RøineSmerud Medical Research International AS, Oslo, Norway.
Marianne KlempDepartment of Pharmacology, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway; The Norwegian Knowledge Centre for the Health Services, Oslo, Norway.
Smerud Medical Research (Norway) · NOUniversity of Oslo · NONasjonalt Kunnskapssenter for Helsetjenesten · NONorwegian Computing Center · NO

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Rheumatoid arthritis patients have been treated with disease modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (DMARDs) and the newer biologic drugs. We sought to compare and rank the biologics with respect to efficacy. We performed a literature search identifying 54 publications encompassing 9 biologics. We conducted a multiple treatment comparison regression analysis letting the number experiencing a 50% improvement on the ACR score be dependent upon dose level and disease duration for assessing the comparable relative effect between biologics and placebo or DMARD. The analysis embraced all treatment and comparator arms over all publications. Hence, all measured effects of any biologic agent contributed to the comparison of all biologic agents relative to each other either given alone or combined with DMARD. We found the drug effect to be dependent on dose level, but not on disease duration, and the impact of a high versus low dose level was the same for all drugs (higher doses indicated a higher frequency of ACR50 scores). The ranking of the drugs when given without DMARD was certolizumab (ranked highest), etanercept, tocilizumab/ abatacept and adalimumab. The ranking of the drugs when given with DMARD was certolizumab (ranked highest), tocilizumab, anakinra/rituximab, golimumab/ infliximab/ abatacept, adalimumab/ etanercept [corrected]. Still, all drugs were effective. All biologic agents were effective compared to placebo, with certolizumab the most effective and adalimumab (without DMARD treatment) and adalimumab/ etanercept (combined with DMARD treatment) the least effective. The drugs were in general more effective, except for etanercept, when given together with DMARDs.

Indexed as

Antirheumatic AgentsArthritis, RheumatoidBiological FactorsHumansProbabilityRegression AnalysisAntirheumatic AgentsBiological Factors

Identifiers

PMID26356639
PMCPMC4565694
OpenAlexW2203970383

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.