Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32756163›Full record

SynthesisMedicine2020

Fourteen small molecule and biological agents for psoriatic arthritis: A network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

Mingliang Qiu, Zhongbo Xu, Wenjuan Gao, Meizhen Xiong, Xianhua Wen, Weina Zhu, Xu Zhou, Minfeng Yu

Open access · goldAbstract readSystematic ReviewNetwork Meta-Analysis
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Medicine, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
0.2field-weighted citation impact, top 51% 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

4 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 6 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. La Tunisie medicale · 2025
    Guideline
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. 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

8 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Mingliang QiuClinical Medical College, Jiangxi University of Traditional Chinese Medicine.
Zhongbo XuDepartment of Emergency.
Wenjuan GaoClinical Medical College, Jiangxi University of Traditional Chinese Medicine.
Meizhen XiongClinical Medical College, Jiangxi University of Traditional Chinese Medicine.
Xianhua WenClinical Medical College, Jiangxi University of Traditional Chinese Medicine.
Weina ZhuClinical Medical College, Jiangxi University of Traditional Chinese Medicine.
Xu ZhouEvidence-based Medicine Research Center, Jiangxi University of Traditional Chinese, Medicine, Nanchang, Jiangxi.
Minfeng YuDepartment of Pediatrics, The Affiliated Hospital of Jiangxi University of Traditional Chinese Medicine.
Jiangxi University of Traditional Chinese Medicine · CNAffiliated Hospital of Jiangxi University of Traditional Chinese Medicine · CN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe comparative efficacy and safety of small molecule and biological agents in the treatment of psoriatic arthritis (PsA) remain unknown.

objectivesTo compare the efficacy and safety of 14 small molecule and biological agents by network meta-analysis (NMA).

methodsRelevant randomized controlled trials involving biological treatments for PsA were identified by searching PubMed, Cochrane Library, EMBASE, Web of Science, and Clinicaltrials.gov and by manual retrieval, up to June 2018. NMA was conducted with Stata 14.0 based on the frequentist method. Effect measures were odds ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Intervention efficacy and safety were ranked according to the surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA).

resultsA total of 30 studies involving 10,191 adult subjects were included. According to NMA, ≥ 20% improvement in modifed American College of Rheumatology response criteria (ACR20) response, Psoriasis Area and Severity Index 75 (PASI75) response, and serious adverse events rate (SAEs) were observed. In direct comparisons, most of the biologics performed better than placebo in terms of ACR20 response rate and PASI75 response rate. Additionally, all medicines were comparable to placebo in terms of SAEs except secukinumab. In terms of mixed comparisons, with regard to the ACR20 response, etanercept (ETN) and infliximab (IFX) were more effective than golimumab (GOL), with ORs of 3.33 (95% CI: 1.17-9.48) and 1.24 (95% CI: 0.61-2.52), respectively. For PASI75 response, IFX was superior to certolizumab pegol (OR = 10.08, 95% CI: 1.54-75.48). In addition, these medicines were comparable to each other in terms of SAEs. ETN and IFX were shown to have the most favorable SUCRA for achieving improved ACR20 and PASI75 responses, respectively, while ABT-122 exhibited the best safety according to the SUCRA for SAEs. Considering both the efficacy (ACR20, PASI75) and safety (SAEs), GOL, ETN, and IFX are the top 3 treatments. CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS: Direct and indirect comparisons and integrated results suggested that the 3 anti- tumor necrosis factor -α biologics (GOL, ETN, and IFX) can be considered the best treatments for PsA after comprehensive consideration of efficacy and safety.

Indexed as

AdultAntibodies, MonoclonalAntibodies, Monoclonal, HumanizedArthritis, PsoriaticBiological FactorsCase-Control StudiesCertolizumab PegolEtanerceptFemaleHumansInfliximabMaleMiddle AgedPlacebosRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicSafetyAntibodies, MonoclonalAntibodies, Monoclonal, HumanizedBiological FactorsCertolizumab PegolEtanerceptgolimumabInfliximabPlacebossecukinumabTumor Necrosis Factor-alpha

Identifiers

PMID32756163
PMCPMC7402795
OpenAlexW3046451711

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.