ArticleStatistics in biopharmaceutical research2015
Comment.
Article in Statistics in biopharmaceutical research, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
We congratulate the authors on their comments on innovative approaches to drug development that fall out of the traditional mold and may result in more quickly bringing safe and effective treatments to patients. Changes in the overall clinical develop approach are most relevant to "breakthrough" therapies, which have generally yielded exceptional efficacy data in early clinical studies, motivating exploration of accelerated development and regulatory approaches, as well as a potential ethical need for crossover upon progression in randomized controlled studies (Horning et al., 2015). As is clear from the manuscript, it will be important to develop an understanding of what works well and where the pitfalls in new approaches are. We comment briefly on the four topics mentioned by the authors, combining comments on items 2 and 3: 1) non-proportional hazards, 2) interpretability of extended Phase I trials, 3) single-arm trials as a basis for approval, and 4) recent innovations in trial design.
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.