ArticleScientific reports2025
Inflammatory and angiogenic serum profile of refractory rheumatoid arthritis.
Article in Scientific reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Association of Th17/Treg immune imbalance and cardiovascular complications in RA patients: retrospective cohort study in refractory subgroups.Clinical rheumatology · 2026Article
- The Therapeutic Potential of Phytochemicals Unlocks New Avenues in the Management of Rheumatoid Arthritis.International journal of molecular sciences · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The objective was to pinpoint specific circulating angiogenic and inflammatory markers of refractory and active RA. We used Luminex technology to measure the concentrations of 17 RA-representative serum angiogenic and inflammatory markers in 211 RA patients categorized into three groups: refractory (failure of 2 or more targeted therapies) active (persistence of objective signs of disease activity) RA, non-refractory (failure of ≥ 1 csDMARDs or a first line of targeted therapy) active RA and non-active RA (DAS28 ≤ 3.2). Refractory and non-refractory active RA patients differed in disease duration, structural damage and the utilization of biologic therapy. The concentrations of the 17 markers failed to distinguish refractory from non-refractory RA patients. The comparison of active and non-active RA only revealed a strong increase of IL-6 concentration in active RA. Refractory active RA exhibited a limited correlation profile showing only three correlations with markers of disease activity, not significantly different from whose of non-active RA. By contrast, in non-refractory active RA patients, correlograms revealed an extensive proinflammatory and proangiogenic correlation profile with 12 markers correlating with inflammation markers or disease activity. In conclusion, no classical marker of RA emerged as specific for refractory disease in this study. Moreover, refractory and active RA patients exhibited only few correlations with disease activity markers, despite the persistence of clinical and biological signs of disease activity. This may suggest that additional molecules may be implicated in refractory disease outside those herein selected. These findings also highlight the potential limitations of serum analysis in refractory active RA.
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.