Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29989662›Full record

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.

M T Wan, J Alvarez, D B Shin, E D Dommasch, J J Wu, J M Gelfand

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed, 2 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

6 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. Head-to-head trials in inflammatory bowel disease: past, present and future.Nature reviews. Gastroenterology & hepatology · 2020
    Review
  6. Review
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

6 authors.

M T WanDepartment of Dermatology, University of Pennsylvania Perelman School of Medicine, Philadelphia, PA, USA.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-0327-5910
J AlvarezDepartment of Dermatology, University of Pennsylvania Perelman School of Medicine, Philadelphia, PA, USA.
D B ShinDepartment of Dermatology, University of Pennsylvania Perelman School of Medicine, Philadelphia, PA, USA.
E D DommaschDepartment of Dermatology and Harvard Medical School, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, MA, USA.
J J WuDepartment of Dermatology, Kaiser Permanente Los Angeles Medical Center, Los Angeles, CA, USA.
J M GelfandDepartment of Dermatology, University of Pennsylvania Perelman School of Medicine, Philadelphia, PA, USA.

Funding

Psoriasis and the Risk of DiabetesK24AR064310 · NIAMS · UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA · PI GELFAND, JOEL M · 2013 to 2017
$870k
National Psoriasis FoundationNIAMS NIH HHS K24 AR064310NIH/NIAMS K24 AR064310
6 · The paper itself

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

Biomedical ResearchResearch DesignEquivalence Trials as TopicHumansPsoriasisStatistics as Topic

Identifiers

PMID29989662
PMCPMC6328353

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.