SynthesisClinical rheumatology2021
Biologic disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs and patient-reported outcomes in axial SpA: a systematic review and a call for action.
Synthesis in Clinical rheumatology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 10 citations in OpenAlex.
- Validation and cross-cultural adaptation of the Turkish version of the revised Leeds Disability Questionnaire in patients with ankylosing spondylitis.Turkish journal of medical sciences · 2022Article
- Where we are in treat to target era? Predictive factors for remission and drug switching in patients with axial spondyloarthritis: a real-life evidence from BioStaR nationwide registry.Clinical rheumatology · 2022Article
- Therapeutic Targets for Ankylosing Spondylitis - Recent Insights and Future Prospects.Open access rheumatology : research and reviews · 2022Review
- [Pain in rheumatic diseases : What can biologics and JAK inhibitors offer?]Zeitschrift fur Rheumatologie · 2021Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 4 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This paper is to assess the efficacy of different biologic DMARDs (bDMARDs) on several patient-reported outcomes (PROs) in randomized controlled trials (RCT) in axial spondyloarthritis (axSpA). A systematic literature review (SLR) was performed. MEDLINE (May 1, 2018) was used with the filters "published in the last 10 years" and "humans." The PICO criteria used were Patients: adults with radiographic axSpA (r-axSpA) or non-radiographic axSpA (nr-axSpA); Intervention: any bDMARD; Compararator: placebo (PBO)/any different drug; Outcome: the Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Index (BASDAI), the Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Functional Index (BASFI), the Ankylosing Spondylitis Quality of Life (ASQoL), the EuroQol-5D (EQ-5D), the Short Form 36 Health Survey physical component summary (SF36-PCS), the Short Form 36 Health Survey mental component summary (SF36-MCS), and the Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy-Fatigue (FACIT-F). After screening 84 initial references and manually selecting other 9, 24 publications, assessing TNF inhibitors (TNFi) or IL17A inhibitors (IL17Ai) were selected. Four RCTs quantified the minimal clinical important difference (MCID) between treatment arms. Most of the RCTs compared the mean difference of PROs between different timepoints. Overall, the treatment arm was superior to the comparator. PROs were often underreported or highly heterogeneously presented. MCID was seldom mentioned. There is a need to raise the standard of care on SpA by aiming at remission and PRO associated improvements. In order to achieve this goal, the target must be clearly defined, reported, and tested.
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.