Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36216923›Full record

ReviewNature reviews. Rheumatology2022

Precision medicine: the precision gap in rheumatic disease.

Chung M A Lin, Faye A H Cooles, John D Isaacs

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Nature reviews. Rheumatology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 21 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
21citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

21 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Pursuing Precision Medicine in Managing Rheumatoid Arthritis.International journal of rheumatic diseases · 2025
    Review
  8. Review
  9. Review
  10. Review
  11. Review
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Management strategies in rheumatoid arthritis.Nature reviews. Rheumatology · 2024
    Review
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

3 authors.

Chung M A LinTranslational and Clinical Research Institute, Newcastle University, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK.
Faye A H CoolesTranslational and Clinical Research Institute, Newcastle University, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK.
John D IsaacsTranslational and Clinical Research Institute, Newcastle University, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK. John.Isaacs@newcastle.ac.uk.ORCID 0000-0002-6103-7056

Funding

Medical Research Council G1001518
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

For many oncological conditions, the application of timely and patient-tailored targeted therapies, or precision medicine, is a major therapeutic development that has provided considerable clinical benefit. However, despite the application of increasingly sophisticated technologies, alongside advanced bioinformatic and machine-learning algorithms, this success is yet to be replicated for the rheumatic diseases. In rheumatoid arthritis, for example, despite an array of targeted biologic and conventional therapeutics, treatment choice remains largely based on trial and error. The concept of the 'precision gap' for rheumatic disease can help us to identify factors that underpin the slow progress towards the discovery and adoption of precision-medicine approaches for rheumatic disease. In a rheumatic disease such as rheumatoid arthritis, it is possible to identify four themes that have slowed progress, solutions to which should help to close the precision gap. These themes relate to our fundamental understanding of disease pathogenesis, how we determine treatment response, confounders of treatment outcomes and trial design.

Indexed as

Arthritis, RheumatoidRheumatic DiseasesHumansPrecision Medicine

Identifiers

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.