Response to: 'Comparing the immunogenicity of the etanercept biosimilar SB4 with the innovator etanercept: another consideration' by Marshall et al.

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.

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.

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

1. 52-week results of the phase 3 randomized study comparing SB4 with reference etanercept in patients with active rheumatoid arthritis.Rheumatology (Oxford, England) · 2017
   Trial

Corrections and comments

• Comment on
  Comparing the immunogenicity of the etanercept biosimilar SB4 with the innovator etanercept: another consideration.2016
• Comment on
  A phase III randomised, double-blind, parallel-group study comparing SB4 with etanercept reference product in patients with active rheumatoid arthritis despite methotrexate therapy.2017

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

Abstract

PubMed holds no abstract for this paper.

Indexed as