Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26986130›Full record

SynthesisMedicine2016

Comparative Effectiveness of Biologic Therapy Regimens for Ankylosing Spondylitis: A Systematic Review and a Network Meta-Analysis.

Chao Chen, XiaoLin Zhang, Lu Xiao, XueSong Zhang, XinLong Ma

Open access · goldAbstract readComparative StudySystematic ReviewNetwork Meta-Analysis
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Medicine, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 papers, 5 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
17citing papers in PubMed, 5 pooled it
5.1field-weighted citation impact, top 5% 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

17 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 36 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. La Tunisie medicale · 2025
    Guideline
  2. Pooled it
  3. Guideline
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Observational
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Role and Function of AInternational journal of molecular sciences · 2017
    Article
  17. 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

5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Chao ChenFrom the Department of Spinal Surgery (CC, XLZ, XLM), Tianjin Hospital, Tianjin; Air Force Centre of Aviation Medical Evaluation and Training (LX), Hangzhou, Zhejiang; and Department of Orthopedics (XSZ), Chinese PLA General Hospital, Beijing, China.
XiaoLin Zhang
Lu Xiao
XueSong Zhang
XinLong Ma
Air Force Institute of Aviation Medicine Affiliated Hospital · CN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

To establish the comparative effectiveness of all available biologic therapy regimens for ankylosing spondylitis, we performed a systematic review and a Bayesian network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. PubMed, Medline, Embase, Cochrane library, and ClinicalTrials.gov were searched from the inception of each database to June 2015. Systematic review and network meta-analysis was reported according to the Preferred Reporting Items of Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Extension Statement for Reporting of Systematic Reviews Incorporating Network Meta-analyses. The primary outcome was 20% improvement of Assessments in SpondyloArthritis International Society Response Criteria (ASAS20) at Week 12 or 14; secondary outcomes were ASAS40, ASAS5/6, ASAS partial remission and 50% improvement in baseline Bath ankylosing spondylitis (AS) disease activity index. We reported relative risks and 95% confidence intervals from direct meta-analysis and 95% credible intervals from Bayesian network meta-analysis, and ranked the treatment for outcomes. We also used Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation criteria to appraise quality of evidence. Fourteen RCTs comprising 2672 active AS patients were included in the network meta-analysis. Most biologic therapy regimens were more effective than placebo regarding all the outcomes assessed, except for secukinumab and tocilizumab. No differences between biologic therapies in the treatment of AS could be found, except for the finding that infliximab 5 mg was superior to tocilizumab. Infliximab 5 mg/kg had the highest probability of being ranked the best for achieving ASAS20, whereas notably, secukinumab had the highest probability of being ranked the second best. Our study suggests that no differences between biologic therapies in the treatment of AS could be found except that infliximab 5 mg was superior to tocilizumab. Infliximab 5 mg/kg seems to be the better biologic therapy regimen for AS. Secukinumab appears promising, though additional data is warranted. Nevertheless, these interpretations should be accepted very cautiously.

Indexed as

Biological TherapyHumansSpondylitis, AnkylosingTreatment Outcome

Identifiers

PMID26986130
PMCPMC4839911
OpenAlexW2300955980

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.