Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27087044›Full record

SynthesisThe British journal of dermatology2016

Oral fumaric acid esters for psoriasis: abridged Cochrane systematic review including GRADE assessments.

A Atwan, J R Ingram, R Abbott, M J Kelson, T Pickles, A Bauer, V Piguet

Open access · hybridAbstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in The British journal of dermatology, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed
3.0field-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

8 citing papers in PubMed, 35 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Observational
  7. Review
  8. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors at 4 institutions in 3 countries.

A AtwanDepartment of Dermatology & Wound Healing, Cardiff Institute of Infection & Immunity, Cardiff University, 3rd Floor Glamorgan House, Heath Park, Cardiff, CF14 4XN, U.K.
J R IngramDepartment of Dermatology & Wound Healing, Cardiff Institute of Infection & Immunity, Cardiff University, 3rd Floor Glamorgan House, Heath Park, Cardiff, CF14 4XN, U.K.. ingramjr@cardiff.ac.uk.
R AbbottWelsh Institute of Dermatology, University Hospital of Wales, Cardiff, U.K.
M J KelsonSouth East Wales Trials Unit, Institute of Translation, Innovation, Methodology and Engagement, Cardiff University, Cardiff, U.K.
T PicklesSouth East Wales Trials Unit, Institute of Translation, Innovation, Methodology and Engagement, Cardiff University, Cardiff, U.K.
A BauerDepartment of Dermatology, Universitätsklinikum Carl Gustav Carus, Dresden, Germany.
V PiguetDepartment of Dermatology & Wound Healing, Cardiff Institute of Infection & Immunity, Cardiff University, 3rd Floor Glamorgan House, Heath Park, Cardiff, CF14 4XN, U.K.
Cardiff Metropolitan University · GBUniversity Hospital Carl Gustav Carus · DEUniversity Hospital of Wales · GBUniversity of Wales Institute Cardiff · SG

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Fumaric acid esters (FAEs) are licensed for the treatment of moderate-to-severe psoriasis in Germany but are also used off-label in many other countries. We conducted this systematic review to synthesize the highest-quality evidence for the benefits and risks of FAEs for psoriasis. Our primary outcomes were change in Psoriasis Area and Severity Index score and dropout rates due to adverse effects. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of FAEs or dimethylfumarate were included, with no restriction on age or psoriasis subtype. We searched the Cochrane Skin Group Specialised Register, CENTRAL in the Cochrane Library, Medline, Embase, LILACS and five trials registers, and hand searched six conference proceedings. Six RCTs with a total of 544 participants were included, four of which were published only as abstracts or brief reports, limiting study reporting. Five RCTs compared FAEs with placebo, and all demonstrated benefit in favour of FAEs. However, meta-analysis was possible only for PASI 50 response after 12-16 weeks, which was achieved by 64% of participants on FAEs compared with 14% on placebo: risk ratio (RR) 4·55, 95% confidence interval (CI) 2·80-7·40; two studies; 247 participants; low-quality evidence). There was no difference in dropout rates due to adverse effects (RR 5·36, 95% CI 0·28-102·12; one study; 27 participants; very low-quality evidence and wide CI). More participants experienced nuisance adverse effects with FAEs (76%) than with placebo (16%) (RR 4·72, 95% CI 2·45-9·08; one study; 99 participants; moderate-quality evidence), mainly abdominal pain, diarrhoea and flushing. One head-to-head study of very low-quality evidence comparing FAEs with methotrexate reported comparable efficacy and dropout rates, although FAEs caused more flushing. The evidence in this review was limited and must be interpreted with caution; studies with better design and outcome reporting are needed.

Indexed as

Administration, OralDermatologic AgentsFumaratesHumansMethotrexatePlacebosPsoriasisQuality of LifeRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicTreatment OutcomeDermatologic AgentsFumaratesMethotrexatePlacebos

Identifiers

PMID27087044
PMCPMC5095877
OpenAlexW2336762206

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.