The Efficacy and Toxicity of Methotrexate Monotherapy versus Methotrexate Combination Therapy with Non-biologic Disease-modifying Anti-rheumatic Drugs in Rheumatoid Arthritis: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective to systematically review randomized trials that compared methotrexate (MTX) monotherapy to MTX in combination with other non-biologic disease-modifying anti-rheumatic Drugs (DMARD) and to compare the performances of PubMed versus MEDLINE (Ovid®) and EMBASE.\nMethods We performed a systematic review of randomized trials comparing MTX alone and MTX in combination with other non-biologic DMARDs. Heterogeneity was investigated and explored. The performances of Pubmed and MEDLINE were evaluated. The EMBASE unique trials were identified and investigated.\nResults A total of 19 trials were included and grouped by the type of patients randomized. Trials in DMARD naive patients showed no significant advantage of the MTX combination versus monotherapy. The recall was 85% vs. 90% for Ovid and PubMed, respectively, while the precision and number-needed-to read of Ovid and Pubmed were comparable. Only 23% of trials were EMBASE unique trials\nConclusions In DMARD naive patients, the balance of efficacy/toxicity favours MTX monotherapy.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.023 | 0.049 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.028 | 0.029 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.009 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".