SynthesisEuropean journal of hospital pharmacy : science and practice2019
A systematic review of the factors associated with the initiation of biologicals in patients with rheumatological conditions.
Synthesis in European journal of hospital pharmacy : science and practice, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Article
- Biologic Initiation Rate in Systemic-Naïve Psoriatic Arthritis Patients Starting Treatment with Apremilast vs Methotrexate: 1-Year Retrospective Analysis of a US Claims Database.Open access rheumatology : research and reviews · 2022Article
- Elicitation of Rheumatologist Preferences for the Treatment of Patients with Rheumatoid Arthritis After the Failure of a First Conventional Synthetic Disease-Modifying Anti-Rheumatic Agent.Rheumatology and therapy · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesBiologicals play a crucial role in managing some of the rheumatological diseases, thus it is important for clinicians, healthcare institutions and policy-makers to understand why biologicals are initiated or refused so as to make better decisions to improve patients' disease outcomes. Although there have been many studies investigating factors associated with the initiation of biologicals for patients with rheumatological conditions, there have been no systematic reviews that provide a comprehensive summary. We aim to provide a summary of factors associated with biologicals' initiation for patients with rheumatological conditions.
methodsWe performed a literature search in PubMed, Embase and PsycINFO. We identified and screened studies according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA). Factors were presented according to patient, disease-related, therapy-related, healthcare team-related and system in-place factors.
resultsA total 1755 articles were reviewed and 24 articles were found to be relevant to our objective. Forty four factors reviewed were placed into five main categories: patient factors (n=13); disease-related factors (n=11); therapy-related factors (n=7); healthcare team-related factors (n=4) and system in-place-related factors (n=9). The factors studied by the published papers found to be associated with decisions to initiate biologicals varied widely.
conclusionForty two factors of five different categories were found to be associated with biologicals' initiation for patients with rheumatological conditions. Clinicians need to be mindful of the complex nature of these factors to optimise therapy of patients with rheumatological conditions. Healthcare institutions and policy- makers ought to be aware of any potential barriers to successful biologicals' treatment and address them accordingly.
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.