ArticleRMD open2023
Robust analyses for radiographic progression in rheumatoid arthritis.
Article in RMD open, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Demonstrating inhibition of the structural damage to joints as a statistically significant difference in radiographic progression as measured by the van der Heijde modified Total Sharp Score (mTSS) is a common objective in trials for rheumatoid arthritis treatments. The frequently used analysis of the covariance model with missing data imputed using linear extrapolation (analyses of covariance, ANCOVA+LE) may not be ideal for long-term extension studies or for paediatric studies. The random coefficient (RC) model may represent a better alternative.A two-arm (active treatment and placebo) setting with a week 44 study period was considered. RC model, ANCOVA+LE and ANCOVA with last observation carried forward imputation were compared under different scenarios in bias, root mean square error (RMSE), power and type I error rate.The RC model outperformed ANCOVA+LE in metrics measuring bias, RMSE, power and type I error rate under the evaluated scenarios. ANCOVA and RC provide similar performance when there are no missing data. With missing data, RC+observed (OBS) provides similar or better results than ANCOVA+LE in power and bias.Our simulations support that RC is both a more sensitive and a more precise alternative to the commonly used ANCOVA+LE as a primary method for analysing mTSS in long-term extension and paediatric studies with a higher likelihood of missing data. The RC model can provide a reference at time points with missing data by estimating a slope; mTSS change by one unit change in time. ANCOVA+LE is recommended as a sensitivity analysis.
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.