ReviewJournal of clinical medicine2023
Initial Treatment with Biological Therapy in Rheumatoid Arthritis.
Review in Journal of clinical medicine, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Advancing Care in Myasthenia Gravis: What Can We Learn From the Multiple Sclerosis Community?Neurology and therapy · 2026Article
- Direct interleukin-6 inhibitor olokizumab in the treatment of polymyalgia rheumatica: a case series.Frontiers in medicine · 2026Article
- The Inflammatory Link of Rheumatoid Arthritis and Thrombosis: Pathogenic Molecular Circuits and Treatment Approaches.Current issues in molecular biology · 2025Review
- Impact of comorbidities, diabetes, and smoking on sustained outcomes in rheumatoid arthritis: a retrospective study.Reumatologia · 2025Article
- Cell-Based Therapy and Genome Editing as Emerging Therapeutic Approaches to Treat Rheumatoid Arthritis.Cells · 2024Review
- Positive and Negative Effects of Administering a Magnetic Field to Patients with Rheumatoid Arthritis (RA).Journal of clinical medicine · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundWe aimed to analyse the effectiveness, efficiency, and safety of initial treatment with biological therapies in rheumatoid arthritis (RA).
methodsQualitative study. A group of RA experts was selected. A scoping review in Medline was conducted to analyse the evidence of initial RA treatment with biological therapies. Randomised clinical trials were selected. Two reviewers analysed the articles and compiled the data, whose quality was assessed using the Jadad scale. The experts discussed the review's findings and generated a series of general principles: Results: Seventeen studies were included. Most of the included patients were middle-aged women with early RA (1-7 months) and multiple poor prognostic factors. Initial treatment with TNF-alpha inhibitors combined with methotrexate (MTX) and an IL6R inhibitor (either in mono or combination therapy) is effective (activity, function, radiographic damage, quality of life), safe, and superior to MTX monotherapy in the short and medium term. In the long term, patients who received initial treatment with biologicals presented better results than those whose initial therapy was with MTX.
conclusionsInitial treatment of RA with biological therapies is effective, efficient, and safe in the short, medium, and long term, particularly for patients with poor prognostic factors.
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.