ArticleInternational journal of women's dermatology2024
Data wobbles in hidradenitis suppurativa clinical trials and potential contributing factors: a retrospective review.
Article in International journal of women's dermatology, 2024. 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.
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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: In some hidradenitis suppurativa (HS) clinical trial study arms, there is an unexpected decline in efficacy between the penultimate visit and the prespecified primary endpoint week, which we have termed a "wobble." Objective: We aimed to establish how often study arms in HS programs wobble. Methods: In a retrospective review, we identified HS clinical trials listed on ClinicalTrials.gov testing systemic, nonantibiotic medications that utilized Hidradenitis Suppurativa Clinical Response (HiSCR) as an outcome measure. We identified study arms demonstrating greater improvement in a visit prior to the primary endpoint week. Baseline subject characteristics were compared between studies with HiSCR wobble and no HiSCR wobble. Results: A total of 21 studies (randomized control trial [RCT], Limitations: Include low number of HS clinical trials and insufficient data reported in many studies to assess for wobble, degree of wobble, and to compare all baseline characteristics. Conclusion: Nonlinear improvement in study arm response occurs in some HS RCTs. Potential contributing factors include a higher proportion of less severe patients at baseline and more female patients.
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.