ArticleEinstein (Sao Paulo, Brazil)2022
Quality of clinical studies present in the package inserts of coagulation factors used in the treatment of hemophilia.
Article in Einstein (Sao Paulo, Brazil), 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, 0 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
6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo identify and analyze the quality of scientific evidence from clinical efficacy studies present in the package inserts of coagulation factors, used in the treatment of hemophilia A and B.
methodsDocumentary study developed in two stages. The first stage consisted of identifying the medicine packages inserts electronically registered in the Brazilian Health Regulatory Agency, and analyzing the availability of the bibliographic references cited therein. This analysis was conducted in the PubMed, SciELO, Google Scholar, and Web of Science databases. The second step was the analysis of the methodological quality of the efficacy studies. Two trained researchers used the Cochrane Collaboration Risk of Bias version 5.1.0 tools for methodological quality analysis, and Review Manager 5.4 software to generate the risk of bias graph.
resultsOf the 17 medicines listed, 7 had referenced package inserts. Of these, 10 studies were eligible for analysis of methodological quality. More than half of the analyzed studies did not control for selection, performance, and detection bias. A total of 100% controlled attrition and reporting biases, and 50% had a high risk of conflict of interest.
conclusionThe biases present are significant and may have influenced the overestimation of the effects of the outcomes of each of the studies.
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.