ArticleMolecular pain
Quantitative evaluation to efficacy and safety of therapies for psoriasis: A network meta-analysis.
Article in Molecular pain. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 15 citations in OpenAlex.
- Pooled it
- Methods used for indirect comparisons of systemic treatments for psoriasis. A systematic review.Skin health and disease · 2023Review
- The Value of Indirect Comparisons of Systemic Biologics for Psoriasis: Interpretation of Efficacy Findings.Dermatology and therapy · 2022Review
- Novel Therapeutic Approaches to Psoriasis and Risk of Infectious Disease.Biomedicines · 2022Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Therapies treating psoriasis can be categorized into five classes according to their mechanism: anti-metabolites (AM), anti-interleukin-12/23 agents (anti-IL12/23), anti-interleukin-17 agents (anti-IL17), anti-T-cell agent (ANT), and anti-tumor necrosis factor-α agent (anti-TNF-α). This network meta-analysis (NMA) aimed to give a quantitative and systemic evaluation of safety and efficacy for the five kinds of therapies mentioned above. Odds ratios and mean differences were calculated to evaluate binary and continuous outcomes, respectively. Forest plots were conducted to show the performance of pair-wise comparison of above therapies in each outcome, and surface under the cumulative ranking curves was given to evaluate the relative ranking of above therapies in each outcome. Node splitting was conducted to evaluate the consistency between direct and indirect evidence. Direct comparisons from 65 studies (32,352 patients) were included in this NMA. Our results showed an excellent efficacy of anti-IL12/23 and anti-IL17. However, these two therapies and anti-TNF-α were revealed to have a high possibility to cause adverse effects (AEs) such as infections. Additionally, node splitting showed that no inconsistency appeared between the direct and indirect comparisons. Anti-IL12/23 was the most recommended therapy according to this NMA. Anti-IL17 had similar efficacy to anti-IL12/23 but should be applied with caution since it has poor performance in safety outcomes.
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.