Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29351763›Full record

ReviewOrphanet journal of rare diseases2018

An overview of the impact of rare disease characteristics on research methodology.

Danielle Whicher, Sarah Philbin, Naomi Aronson

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Orphanet journal of rare diseases, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 53 papers, 6 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
53citing papers in PubMed, 6 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

53 citing papers in PubMed, 6 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Dental Implants in People with Osteogenesis Imperfecta: A Systematic Review.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2022
    Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Characterizing health state utilities associated with Duchenne muscular dystrophy: a systematic review.Quality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation · 2020
    Pooled it
  7. Trial
  8. Trial
  9. Review
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Article
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

3 authors.

Danielle WhicherNational Academy of Medicine, 500 5th Street NW, Washington, DC, 20001, USA. dwhicher@gmail.com.ORCID 0000-0001-8921-2592
Sarah PhilbinPatient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute (PCORI), 1919 M Street NW, Washington, DC, 20036, USA.
Naomi AronsonBlue Cross Blue Shield Association, 300 E Randolph Street, Chicago, IL, 60601, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundAbout 30 million individuals in the United States are living with a rare disease, which by definition have a prevalence of 200,000 or fewer cases in the United States ([National Organization for Rare Disorders], [About NORD], [2016]). Disease heterogeneity and geographic dispersion add to the difficulty of completing robust studies in small populations. Improving the ability to conduct research on rare diseases would have a significant impact on population health. The purpose of this paper is to raise awareness of methodological approaches that can address the challenges to conducting robust research on rare diseases. APPROACH: We conducted a landscape review of available methodological and analytic approaches to address the challenges of rare disease research. Our objectives were to: 1. identify algorithms for matching study design to rare disease attributes and the methodological approaches applicable to these algorithms; 2. draw inferences on how research communities and infrastructure can contribute to the efficiency of research on rare diseases; and 3. to describe methodological approaches in the rare disease portfolio of the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute (PCORI), a funder promoting both rare disease research and research infrastructure.

resultsWe identified three algorithms for matching study design to rare disease or intervention characteristics (Gagne, et.al, BMJ 349:g6802, 2014); (Gupta, et.al, J Clin Epidemiol 64:1085-1094, 2011); (Cornu, et. al, Orphet J Rare Dis 8:48,2012) and summarized the applicable methodological and analytic approaches. From this literature we were also able to draw inferences on how an effective research infrastructure can set an agenda, prioritize studies, accelerate accrual, catalyze patient engagement and terminate poorly performing studies. Of the 24 rare disease projects in the PCORI portfolio, 11 are randomized controlled trials (RCTs) using standard designs. Thirteen are observational studies using case-control, prospective cohort, or natural history designs. PCORI has supported the development of 9 Patient-Powered Research Networks (PPRNs) focused on rare diseases.

conclusionMatching research design to attributes of rare diseases and interventions can facilitate the completion of RCTs that are adequately powered. An effective research infrastructure can improve efficiency and avoid waste in rare disease research. Our review of the PCORI research portfolio demonstrates that it is feasible to conduct RCTs in rare disease. However, most of these studies are using standard RCT designs. This suggests that use of a broader array of methodological approaches to RCTs --such as adaptive trials, cross-over trials, and early escape designs can improve the productivity of robust research in rare diseases.

Indexed as

AlgorithmsHumansRare DiseasesResearch DesignExperimental designsOrphan diseaseRare diseaseRegistriesResearch design

Identifiers

PMID29351763
PMCPMC5775563

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.