Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31485714›Full record

ReviewDer Internist2019

[Biologics in rheumatology].

U Wagner

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Der Internist, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
0.2field-weighted citation impact, top 43% 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

2 citing papers in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Immunosuppressive Activity ofFrontiers in pharmacology · 2020
    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

1 author at 1 institution in 1 country.

U WagnerDepartment für Innere Medizin, Neurologie und Dermatologie, Klinik für Gastroenterologie, Hepatologie, Infektionsmedizin, Rheumatologie, Universitätsklinikum Leipzig, Liebigstr. 20, 04103, Leipzig, Deutschland. ulf.wagner@medizin.uni-leipzig.de.
University Hospital Leipzig · DE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundMonoclonal antibodies and fusion proteins were introduced into clinical rheumatology 20 years ago. Nowadays they are an established component of modern internal medical practice.

objectiveThis article gives an overview of the breadth of biologics currently in clinical use. MATERIAL AND

methodsEvaluation of published approval studies and guideline recommendations, discussion of the immunological principles and targets in the treatment with biologics.

resultsMonoclonal antibodies and fusion proteins for influencing cytokine signals, T‑cell costimulation and B‑cell function are the most important innovations in the treatment of rheumatological diseases. Nowadays they are indispensible for the treatment of moderate and severe disease courses of rheumatoid arthritis, spondylarthropathies and vasculitides.

conclusionAlthough a cure or permanent freedom from symptoms in rheumatological autoimmune diseases is still not possible, much more favorable disease courses with less long-term limitations can be achieved by the early administration of biologics.

Indexed as

Antibodies, MonoclonalAntibodies, Monoclonal, HumanizedAntirheumatic AgentsArthritis, RheumatoidBiological ProductsHumansInfliximabRheumatologyRituximabAntibodies, MonoclonalAntibodies, Monoclonal, HumanizedAntirheumatic AgentsbelimumabBiological ProductsInfliximabRituximabArthritis, rheumatoidBelimumabInfliximabRituximabSpondylarthropathies

Identifiers

PMID31485714
OpenAlexW2971919767

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.