Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27527064›Full record

ReviewDer Internist2016

[Orphan drugs : New opportunities for the treatment of rare diseases].

M Beck

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Der Internist, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
0.4field-weighted citation impact, top 30% 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

2 citing papers in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. [Orphan drugs].Der Internist · 2019
    Article
  2. 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

1 author at 1 institution in 1 country.

M BeckInstitut für Humangenetik, Universitätsmedizin Mainz, Langenbeckstr. 1, 55131, Mainz, Deutschland. michael.beck@unimedizin-mainz.de.
Klinik und Poliklinik für Psychosomatische Medizin und Psychotherapie · DE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Not only in Europe and USA, but also in many other countries rare disorders-so-called orphan diseases-have attracted more and more attention. The formation of specialized centers for rare disorders has enabled the diagnosis of diseases that have been widely unknown before. In addition, pharmaceutical companies have recognized orphan diseases as a profitable source of revenue. The development and marketing of new drugs for rare diseases-so-called orphan diseases-means a great challenge for all who participate in the health care system: Because the number of patients who are available for a clinical study is mostly very small, it is often very difficult or even impossible to show statistically firm evidence of efficacy. The standard placebo-controlled, double-blind clinical trial is often inappropriate for the approval procedure of an orphan drug; thus other study designs or other parameters (e.g. biomarkers) have to be used to prove clinical efficacy of the study drug. Only relatively small amounts of drugs can be sold to the generally few patients affected by an orphan disease and clinical trials require an high amount of financial investment; therefore orphan drugs have in general extremely high prices. How long these high expenses can be borne by the health care system in view of the great number of rare diseases remains questionable.

Indexed as

Drug DiscoveryDrug IndustryEvidence-Based MedicineHumansInternationalityOrphan Drug ProductionRare DiseasesTreatment OutcomeClinical trialsDrug approvalPublic healthRare diseases, economicsSelf-help groups

Identifiers

PMID27527064
OpenAlexW2765293324

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.