MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4388489215 · doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2022-062306

Systematic literature review and network meta-analysis of therapies for psoriatic arthritis on patient-reported outcomes

2023· review· en· W4388489215 on OpenAlexafffund
Peter Nash, Jan Dutz, Steve Peterson, Barkha P. Patel, Kiefer Eaton, M. Shawi, F. Zazzetti, James Cheng‐Chung Wei

Bibliographic record

VenueBMJ Open · 2023
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSpondyloarthritis Studies and Treatments
Canadian institutionsEVERSANA (Canada)University of British Columbia
FundersUCB PharmaJanssen Research and DevelopmentGilead SciencesJanssen PharmaceuticalsCelgenePfizerFogarty International CenterEisaiJanssen CanadaSanofiChugai PharmaceuticalAmgenEli Lilly and Company
KeywordsMedicinePsoriatic arthritisPhysical therapySystematic reviewMEDLINEChecklistData extractionClinical trialInternal medicineDisease

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVES: Head-to-head clinical trials are common in psoriasis, but scarce in psoriatic arthritis (PsA), making treatment comparisons between therapeutic classes difficult. This study describes the relative effectiveness of targeted synthetic (ts) and biologic (b) disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) on patient-reported outcomes (PROs) through network meta-analysis (NMA). DESIGN: A systematic literature review (SLR) was conducted in January 2020. Bayesian NMAs were conducted to compare treatments on Health Assessment Questionnaire Disability Index (HAQ-DI) and 36-item Short Form (SF-36) Health Survey including Mental Component Summary (MCS) and Physical Component Summary (PCS) scores. DATA SOURCES: Ovid MEDLINE (including Epub Ahead of Print, In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations and Daily),Embase and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: Phase III randomised controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating patients with PsA receiving tsDMARDS, bDMARDs or placebo were included in the SLR; there was no restriction on outcomes. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: Two independent researchers reviewed all citations. Data for studies meeting all inclusion criteria were extracted into a standardised Excel-based form by one reviewer and validated by a second reviewer. A third reviewer was consulted to resolve any discrepancies, as necessary. Risk of bias was assessed using the The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence clinical effectiveness quality assessment checklist. RESULTS: In total, 26 RCTs were included. For HAQ-DI, SF-36 PCS and SF-36 MCS scores, intravenous tumour necrosis factor (TNF) alpha inhibitors generally ranked higher than most other classes of therapies available to treat patients with PsA. For almost all outcomes, several interleukin (IL)-23, IL-17A, subcutaneous TNF and IL-12/23 agents offered comparable improvement, while cytotoxic T-lymphocyte-associated antigen 4, phosphodiesterase-4 and Janus kinase inhibitors often had the lowest efficacy. CONCLUSIONS: While intravenous TNFs may provide some improvements in PROs relative to several other tsDMARDs and bDMARDs for the treatment of patients with PsA, differences between classes of therapies across outcomes were small.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.056
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.148
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.056
Threshold uncertainty score0.296

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0560.148
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0040.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0230.041
Bibliometrics0.0190.015
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0050.003
Open science0.0030.003
Research integrity0.0030.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.001

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.226
GPT teacher head0.460
Teacher spread0.235 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designMeta-analysis
Domainnot available
GenreReview

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations6
Published2023
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBMJ Open→Same topicSpondyloarthritis Studies and Treatments→French-language works237,207→