SynthesisFrontiers in medicine2025
The efficacy and safety of biologics for patients with severe asthma: an umbrella review of systematic reviews and meta-analyses.
Synthesis in Frontiers in medicine, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Article
- Airway epithelial dysfunction in asthma pathogenesis: epigenetic mechanisms, inflammatory crosstalk, and therapeutic opportunities.Frontiers in allergy · 2026Review
- Impact of biologic therapy on blood cell indices and exacerbation risk in severe asthma: predictive value of the neutrophil-to-eosinophil ratio.Frontiers in allergy · 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Many systematic reviews and meta-analyses (SR/MAs) have evaluated the efficacy of biologic therapy for severe asthma. However, the quality of these SR/MAs is unclear, which may influence the selection of biologics and lead to misleading clinical decisions. Therefore, this umbrella review aims to objectively evaluate the quality of these SR/MAs and reassess the efficacy of biologic therapy for severe asthma. Methods: A systematic search was performed in PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, and MEDLINE databases. Literature screening and data extraction were conducted according to inclusion and exclusion criteria. Then, we evaluated the methodological quality of these SR/MAs using A MeaSurement Tool to Assess Reviews 2 (AMSTAR 2). In addition, the re-meta-analysis of study outcomes was performed applying R 4.3.3 software. Results: The umbrella review included 23 SR/MAs. In the evaluation of methodological quality, five SR/MAs were rated as high quality, one was rated as moderate, and 17 were rated as low or critically low. In terms of efficacy evaluation, biologics were associated with a 45% reduction in AER (RR: 0.55; Conclusion: This umbrella review has demonstrated that biologics have good efficacy and acceptable safety in the treatment of severe asthma. However, the methodological quality of included SR/MAs was mostly low or critically low, suggesting that we need to be cautious when interpreting the results of this study. Therefore, more high-quality SR/MAs are needed to provide robust clinical evidence. Systematic review registration: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/, identifier CRD42024607393.
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.