SynthesisAdvances in rheumatology (London, England)2025
Efficacy of biologic DMARDs in improving the clinical response of patients with polyarticular juvenile idiopathic arthritis: a meta-analysis of RCTs.
Synthesis in Advances in rheumatology (London, England), 2025. 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundWe aimed to conduct a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) to examine the efficacy of biologic DMARDs in improving the clinical response of patients with polyarticular JIA.
methodsThe literature and relevant reviews were searched for published clinical studies comparing the efficacy of standard therapy without biologic DMARDs to that of biologic DMARDs in patients with polyarticular JIA. The focus was on the minimal clinical effectiveness criteria of the pediatric American College of Rheumatology (pedACR30-100), time to disease flare, remission clinical, inactive disease, and pedACR30/flare. This meta-analysis followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) guidelines.
resultsIn total, 9 randomized controlled trials were included in the study. Compared with standard therapy, treatment with biologics significantly improved PedACR70 (relative risk [RR] 1.68; 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.43-1.96; p < 0.00001). Similarly, PedACR30 (RR 1.37; CI 1.19-1.58; p < 0.0001), PedACR50 (RR 1.49; CI 1.25-1.77; p < 0.00001), PedACR90 (RR 1.67; CI 1.34-2.09; p < 0.00001) and PedACR100 (RR 1.88; CI 1.05-3.35; p = 0.03) were also significantly improved with biologic treatment. However, patients on standard therapy had worse flare outcomes, as determined by the PedACR30/Flare (RR 0.56; CI 95% 0.45-0.70; p < 0.00001). Additionally, the time to disease flare was significantly shorter with standard therapy (hazard ratio [HR] 0.38; 95% CI 0.27-0.54; p < 0.00001).
conclusionCompared with standard therapy, biologic DMARDs lead to significant and long-term improvements in signs and symptoms in polyarticular JIA patients.
trial registrationThis meta-analysis was registered in PROSPERO under the registration number CRD42023494938 on December 18, 2023.
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.