Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29657738›Full record

ReviewLupus science & medicine2018

Lupus community panel proposals for optimising clinical trials: 2018.

Joan T Merrill, Susan Manzi, Cynthia Aranow, Anca Askanase, Ian Bruce, Eliza Chakravarty, Ben Chong, Karen Costenbader, Maria Dall'Era, Ellen Ginzler and 7 more

Erratum issuedAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Lupus science & medicine, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 38 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
38citing papers in PubMed
–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

38 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Recent advances in immunotherapies for lupus nephritis.Pediatric nephrology (Berlin, Germany) · 2023
    Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Review
  18. Baricitinib: From Rheumatoid Arthritis to COVID-19.Journal of clinical pharmacology · 2021
    Review
  19. Article
  20. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

17 authors.

Joan T MerrillArthritis & Clinical Immunology Program, Oklahoma Medical Research Foundation, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, USA.
Susan ManziAllegheny Health Network, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, USA.
Cynthia AranowAutoimmune and Musculoskeletal Disease, Feinstein Institute for Medical Research, Manhasset, New York, USA.
Anca AskanaseColumbia University Medical Center, New York City, New York, USA.
Ian BruceUniversity of Manchester, Manchester, England, UK.
Eliza ChakravartyArthritis & Clinical Immunology Program, Oklahoma Medical Research Foundation, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, USA.
Ben ChongDepartment of Dermatology, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, Texas, USA.
Karen CostenbaderDepartment of Medicine, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts, USA.
Maria Dall'EraUCSF, San Francisco, California, USA.
Ellen GinzlerDepartment of Medicine, SUNY Downstate Medical Center, Brooklyn, New York, USA.
Leslie HanrahanResearch and Education, Lupus Foundation of America, Washington, District of Columbia, USA.
Ken KalunianRheumatology, University of California, San Diego, San Diego, USA.
Joseph MerolaDepartment of Medicine, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts, USA.
Sandra RaymondLupus Foundation of America, Washington, District of Columbia, USA.
Brad RovinInternal Medicine/Nephrology, Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center, Columbus, Ohio, USA.
Amit SaxenaRheumatology, New York University, New York City, New York, USA.
Victoria P WerthDepartment of Dermatology, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA.

Funding

Medical Research Council MR/M01665X/1
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Formidable impediments stand in the way of treatment development for lupus. These include the unwieldy size of current trials, international competition for scarce patients, complex outcome measures and a poor understanding of these outcomes in the world at large. The heterogeneity of the disease itself coupled to superimposition of variegated background polypharmacy has created enough immunological noise to virtually ensure the failure of lupus treatment trials, leaving an understandable suspicion that at least some of the results in testing failed drugs over the years may not have been negative, but merely uninterpretable. The authors have consulted with many clinical trial investigators, biopharmaceutical developers and stakeholders from government and voluntary sectors. This paper examines the available evidence that supports workable trial designs and proposes approaches to improve the odds of completing interpretable treatment development programs for lupus.

Indexed as

clinical trialsoutcome measurestrial design

Identifiers

PMID29657738
PMCPMC5894527

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.