Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26423993›Full record

ReviewSeminars in immunopathology2016

The continuing evolution of targeted therapy for inflammatory skin disease.

C Schlapbach, A A Navarini

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Seminars in immunopathology, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
0.4field-weighted citation impact, top 38% 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

5 citing papers in PubMed, 15 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
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

2 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

C SchlapbachDepartment of Dermatology, University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland.
A A NavariniDepartment of Dermatology, University Hospital of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland. alexander.navarini@usz.ch.
University Hospital of Zurich · CHUniversity of Bern · CH

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Treatment of inflammatory skin disease has evolved from non-specific suppression of immune cells to increasingly precise targeting and modulation of immune mechanisms at all levels. This has led to dramatic treatment successes and deepened understanding of the pathophysiology. The cycle of in vitro studies, animal models, clinical trials, and case series of non-primary indications is a feedback loop that informs and guides the design of ever better disease models and therapeutic targets. Not only are we constantly discovering new molecules driving skin inflammation, we have also found that psoriasis and other autoimmune conditions are driven by distinct mediators occurring in early and late phases, which could be an opportunity for phase-specific or multipronged interventions. The deeper our mechanistic understanding, the more likely we will be able to discover subtle strategies to reprogram each patients' immune cells without having to dampen or eliminate their protective effects against pathogens and tumors. Lastly, ongoing genomic studies might soon confirm interesting genetic markers for predictive personalized medicine, the earliest currently being evaluated in psoriasis such as HLA-Cw6 and TNFAIP3. Taken together, the continued evolution of immune therapies in skin will potentially allow an unprecedented form of medicine that is not bent on silencing the pathogenic mechanism, but rather aims at using subtle interventions to shepherd the immune cell swarm back on the correct path.

Indexed as

Molecular Targeted TherapyDermatitisHumansRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicTreatment OutcomeBiologicsCombinedInflammationPhase-specificSwarm

Identifiers

PMID26423993
OpenAlexW1837832684

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.