Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26469187›Full record

SynthesisPloS one2015

Common Immunosuppressive Monotherapy for Graves' Ophthalmopathy: A Meta-Analysis.

Pei Mou, Li-Hong Jiang, Yun Zhang, Yu-Zhen Li, Heng Lou, Cheng-Cheng Zeng, Qiu-Hong Wang, Jin-Wei Cheng, Rui-Li Wei

Open access · goldAbstract readMeta-Analysis
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
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. Cited by 6 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
1.1field-weighted citation impact, top 22% 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

6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 10 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Biomedical reports · 2016
    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

9 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Pei MouDepartment of Ophthalmology, Shanghai Changzheng Hospital, Second Military Medical University, Shanghai, China.
Li-Hong JiangDepartment of Ophthalmology, Shanghai Zhabei District Central Hospital, Shanghai, China.
Yun ZhangDepartment of Ophthalmology, Shanghai Changzheng Hospital, Second Military Medical University, Shanghai, China.
Yu-Zhen LiDepartment of Ophthalmology, Shanghai Changzheng Hospital, Second Military Medical University, Shanghai, China.
Heng LouDepartment of Ophthalmology, Shanghai Changzheng Hospital, Second Military Medical University, Shanghai, China.
Cheng-Cheng ZengDepartment of Ophthalmology, Shanghai Changzheng Hospital, Second Military Medical University, Shanghai, China.
Qiu-Hong WangDepartment of Ophthalmology, Shanghai Changzheng Hospital, Second Military Medical University, Shanghai, China.
Jin-Wei ChengDepartment of Ophthalmology, Shanghai Changzheng Hospital, Second Military Medical University, Shanghai, China.
Rui-Li WeiDepartment of Ophthalmology, Shanghai Changzheng Hospital, Second Military Medical University, Shanghai, China.
Second Military Medical University · CNShanghai Changzheng Hospital · CNShanghai Zhabei District Shibei Hospital · CN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundSeveral immunosuppressive therapeutic regimens are widely used to treat Graves' ophthalmopathy (GO), including oral glucocorticoids (OGC), intravenous glucocorticoids (IVGC), retrobulbar injections of glucocorticoids (ROGC) and orbital radiotherapy (OR). The priority among these is unknown. This meta-analysis investigated the efficacy and tolerability of the above regimens.

methodsThe PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library databases and the Chinese Biomedicine Database were searched up to November 18, 2014. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing monotherapies (OGC, IVGC, ROGC and OR) in patients with moderate-to-severe active GO were selected. The main efficacy measures were the response rate, the standard mean difference (SMD) in the reduction in the clinical activity score (CAS) and the mean difference (MD) in proptosis from baseline to the end of treatment. The main tolerability measure was the risk ratio (RR) for adverse events. The pooled estimates and 95% confidence intervals (95% CIs) were calculated using the RevMan software, version 5.1.

resultsSeven published RCTs involving 328 participants were included in the present meta-analysis, including IVGC versus OGC (3 trials), ROGC versus OGC (3 trials) and OR versus OGC (1 trial). IVGC was more effective than OGC in response rate (RR = 1.48, 95% CI = 1.18-1.87) and had an obvious CAS reduction (SMD = 0.69, 95% CI = 0.13-1.25). IVGC caused fewer adverse events than OGC. ROGC and OGC had no statistically significant difference in response rate (RR = 1.16, 95% CI = 0.94-1.42). OR also did not differ significantly compared with OGC (RR = 0.93, 95% CI = 0.54-1.60). ROGC and OR had fewer adverse events, such as weight gain, compared with OGC.

conclusionsFor patients with GO in the moderate-to-severe active phase, current evidence gave priority to IVGC, which had a statistically significant advantage over OGC and caused fewer adverse events. ROGC and OR did not provide greater efficacy than OGC, although better tolerability and fewer adverse events were shown.

Indexed as

Clinical Trials as TopicGraves OphthalmopathyHumansImmunosuppressive AgentsSafetyTreatment OutcomeImmunosuppressive Agents

Identifiers

PMID26469187
PMCPMC4607493
OpenAlexW2257245187

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.