Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30137590›Full record

ArticleRheumatology (Oxford, England)2018

Power in numbers.

Evelyne Vinet, Eliza F Chakravarty, Megan E B Clowse

Open access · bronzeAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Rheumatology (Oxford, England), 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
0.6field-weighted citation impact, top 30% of its field
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

3 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Observational
  2. Article
  3. 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 at 3 institutions in 2 countries.

Evelyne VinetDivisions of Clinical Epidemiology and Rheumatology, McGill University Health Centre, Montreal, Québec, Canada.
Eliza F ChakravartyDivision of Arthritis & Clinical Immunology, Oklahoma Medical Research Foundation, Oklahoma City, OK.
Megan E B ClowseDivision of Rheumatology, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, NC, USA.
Duke University Hospital · USMcGill University Health Centre · CAOklahoma Medical Research Foundation · US

Funding

International Conference on Reproduction, Pregnancy, and Rheumatic DiseaseR13AR070007 · NIAMS · DUKE UNIVERSITY · PI CLOWSE, MEGAN E.B. · 2016 to 2016
$15k
NIAMS NIH HHS R13 AR070007
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Collecting useful data on a sufficiently large cohort of pregnancies in women with rheumatic disease is a challenge. The original manuscripts that demonstrated the dangers of pregnancy in women with lupus were relatively small case series. As larger prospective cohorts were collected by university-based experts, however, greater safety was demonstrated and the current norms of treatment were determined. In recent years, larger administrative databases have been tapped to study pregnancies not managed within university clinics and to study the long-term impact of maternal rheumatic disease on the offspring. Each of these methods of study has both strengths and weaknesses, adding a unique piece of data to our overall knowledge. We will discuss a range of approaches to the study of rheumatic disease in pregnancy, covering the potential benefits that each brings as well as the biases that can impact study results. When the results of studies are viewed through these lenses, each can contribute to our larger understanding of the rheumatic diseases in pregnancy.

Indexed as

Antirheumatic AgentsBiomedical ResearchFemaleHumansInfant, NewbornLupus Erythematosus, SystemicMaternal ExposurePregnancyPregnancy ComplicationsPrenatal Exposure Delayed EffectsAntirheumatic Agents

Identifiers

PMID30137590
PMCPMC6099130
OpenAlexW2888026094

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.