SynthesisJournal of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology : JEADV2019
Head-to-head trials of systemic psoriasis therapies: a systematic review of study design and maximum acceptable treatment differences.
Synthesis in Journal of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology : JEADV, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 2 of them syntheses 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Criteria used to define tumor necrosis factor-alpha inhibitors failure in patients with moderate-to-severe psoriasis: a systematic literature review.Annals of medicine · 2023Pooled it
- Comparison of Biologics and Oral Treatments for Plaque Psoriasis: A Meta-analysis.JAMA dermatology · 2020Pooled it
- Switching Between Adalimumab Reference Product and BI 695501 in Patients with Chronic Plaque Psoriasis (VOLTAIRE-X): A Randomized Controlled Trial.American journal of clinical dermatology · 2022Trial
- Risankizumab versus Deucravacitinib in Adults With Moderate Plaque Psoriasis: 16-Week Results from the Phase 4 IMMpactful Trial.Dermatology and therapy · 2026Article
- Head-to-head trials in inflammatory bowel disease: past, present and future.Nature reviews. Gastroenterology & hepatology · 2020Review
- Review of Statistical Considerations and Data Imputation Methodologies in Psoriasis Clinical Trials.The Journal of clinical and aesthetic dermatologyReview
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
There is increasing use of head-to-head clinical trials in dermatology when establishing the efficacy of a new treatment. Active comparator trials (ACTs) can be classified into three distinct study trial designs: non-inferiority, equivalence and superiority. A better understanding of the statistical parameters, such as acceptable treatment differences (also known as the margin or delta), is necessary to properly design and interpret findings of active comparator trials (ACTs) in the field of dermatology. Therefore, the objective of this study was to summarize the maximum acceptable treatment differences in clinical trials that examine the efficacy of an oral or biologic psoriasis therapy with an active comparator. We conducted a systematic search using MEDLINE, Scopus, EMBASE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, LILACS, Web of Science and ClinicalTrials.gov from inception to 31 August 2017. All ACTs with adult participants that had a primary outcome of the Psoriasis Area and Severity Index score were included. Bibliographies of articles were further reviewed. Two investigators independently assessed for article inclusion and separately completed data extraction of predefined data points. When there was a disagreement, a third investigator was consulted. Of the 49 ACTs included, there were 13 superiority, eight non-inferiority and seven equivalence trials. Another 21 studies had inadequate information for classification. All of the non-inferiority trials reported the margin, one of the superiority and six of the equivalence trials stated the treatment difference explicitly. For superiority trials, acceptable treatment differences ranged from 14% to 20%. The non-inferiority studies reported lower bound margins ranging from -20% to -10%. The equivalence trials reported upper and lower bound margins ranging from ±12.5% to ±18%. The results demonstrate the need for harmonization in the conduct of dermatological clinical trials and in the approaches of reporting research parameters.
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.