ReviewCurrent opinion in pulmonary medicine2017
Innovating cystic fibrosis clinical trial designs in an era of successful standard of care therapies.
Review in Current opinion in pulmonary medicine, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic and the changing landscape of CF on the cASPerCF trial: a real-world experience.Trials · 2024Article
- Cystic Fibrosis Human Organs-on-a-Chip.Micromachines · 2021Review
- The future of cystic fibrosis care: a global perspective.The Lancet. Respiratory medicine · 2020Review
- Cystic Fibrosis: Translating Molecular Mechanisms into Effective Therapies.Annals of the American Thoracic Society · 2018Review
- Unmet needs in cystic fibrosis: the next steps in improving outcomes.Expert review of respiratory medicine · 2018Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purpose of reviewEvolving cystic fibrosis 'standards of care' have influenced recent cystic fibrosis clinical trial designs for new therapies; care additions/improvements will require innovative trial designs to maximize feasibility and efficacy detection. RECENT
findingsThree cystic fibrosis therapeutic areas (pulmonary exacerbations, Pseudomonas aeruginosa airway infections, and reduced cystic fibrosis transmembrane conductance regulator [CFTR] protein function) differ with respect to the duration for which recognized 'standards of care' have been available. However, developers of new therapies in all the three areas are affected by similar challenges: standards of care have become so strongly entrenched that traditional placebo-controlled studies in cystic fibrosis populations likely to benefit from newer therapies have become less and less feasible. Today, patients/clinicians are more likely to entertain participation in active-comparator trial designs, that have substantial challenges of their own. Foremost among these are the selection of 'valid' active comparator(s), estimation of a comparator's current clinical efficacy (required for testing noninferiority hypotheses), and effective blinding of commercially available comparators. SUMMARY: Recent and future cystic fibrosis clinical trial designs will have to creatively address this collateral result of successful past development of effective cystic fibrosis therapies: patients and clinicians are much less likely to accept simple, placebo-controlled studies to evaluate future therapies.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.