SynthesisFrontiers in immunology2022
The Systemic Lupus Erythematosus Interventional Trials in Mainland China: A Continuous Challenge.
Synthesis in Frontiers in immunology, 2022. 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, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
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
9 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objectives: More than a quarter of single-country systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) interventional randomized clinical trials (RCTs) were conducted in China. To help develop management guidelines and set benchmarks for future SLE research, a systematic review of current trials is needed. Methods: We searched systematically three databases and four registries to summarize the interventional RCTs in mainland China and identify factors associated with participant loss. The internal validity of trials was assessed using the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool for assessing risk of bias. The odds ratio (OR) was defined as the ratio of the odds of less than 10% loss to follow-up in the presence or absence of different factors. Results: A total of 188 trials met our inclusion criteria, and 15·5% of trials conducted in mainland China ranked low risk of bias. Participant loss was significantly higher among trials that had a defined primary outcome or were registered {primary outcome identification (0·02 [0·00-0·23]) and registration (0·14 [0·03-0·69])}. Trials examining traditional Chinese medicine (TCM) pharmacological treatments had an 8·16-fold (8·16 [1·28-51·98]) higher probability of having low participant loss than trials examining non-TCM pharmacological treatment trials, and trials that did not report masking status had a 15·95-fold (15·95 [2·45-103·88]) higher probability of having low participant loss than open-label trials. In addition, published articles in Chinese also had higher probability of having low participant loss (5·39 [1·10-26·37]). Conclusion: SLE trials conducted in mainland China were of relatively poor quality. This situation, including nonrigorous design, lack of registration, and absence of compliance reporting, needs to be ameliorated. To maintain the fundamental repeatability and comparability of mainland China SLE RCTs, transparency of the clinical trial process and complete reporting of the trial data are crucial and urgently needed.
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.