ArticleAMRC open research2021
Prior elicitation of the efficacy and tolerability of Methotrexate and Mycophenolate Mofetil in Juvenile Localised Scleroderma.
Article in AMRC open research, 2021. 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.
- Bayesian trial of adalimumab versus secukinumab for children with juvenile idiopathic arthritis associated uveitis or chronic anterior uveitis.Pediatric rheumatology online journal · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
21 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Evidence is lacking for safe and effective treatments for juvenile localised scleroderma (JLS). Methotrexate (MTX) is commonly used first line and mycophenolate mofetil (MMF) second line, despite a limited evidence base. A head to head trial of these two medications would provide data on relative efficacy and tolerability. However, a frequentist approach is difficult to deliver in JLS, because of the numbers needed to sufficiently power a trial. A Bayesian approach could be considered. Methods: An international consensus meeting was convened including an elicitation exercise where opinion was sought on the relative efficacy and tolerability of MTX compared to MMF to produce prior distributions for a future Bayesian trial. Secondary aims were to achieve consensus agreement on critical aspects of a future trial. Results: An international group of 12 clinical experts participated. Opinion suggested superior efficacy and tolerability of MMF compared to MTX; where most likely value of efficacy of MMF was 0.70 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.34-0.90) and of MTX was 0.68 (95% CI 0.41-0.8). The most likely value of tolerability of MMF was 0.77 (95% CI 0.3-0.94) and of MTX was 0.62 (95% CI 0.32-0.84). The wider CI for MMF highlights that experts were less sure about relative efficacy and tolerability of MMF compared to MTX. Despite using a Bayesian approach, power calculations still produced a total sample size of 240 participants, reflecting the uncertainty amongst experts about the performance of MMF. Conclusions: Key factors have been defined regarding the design of a future Bayesian approach clinical trial including elicitation of prior opinion of the efficacy and tolerability of MTX and MMF in JLS. Combining further efficacy data on MTX and MMF with prior opinion could potentially reduce the pre-trial uncertainty so that, when combined with smaller trial sample sizes a compelling evidence base is available.
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.