Effectiveness of thalidomide for ankylosing spondylitis: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials in China
Clinical Rheumatology, ISSN: 1434-9949, Vol: 41, Issue: 10, Page: 2929-2938
2022
- 3Citations
- 9Captures
Metric Options: Counts1 Year3 YearSelecting the 1-year or 3-year option will change the metrics count to percentiles, illustrating how an article or review compares to other articles or reviews within the selected time period in the same journal. Selecting the 1-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year. Selecting the 3-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year plus the two years prior.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Metrics Details
- Citations3
- Citation Indexes3
- Captures9
- Readers9
Review Description
Several studies have demonstrated the benefits of thalidomide as a treatment for patients with ankylosing spondylitis (AS); however, published literature reported controversial results. We conducted a meta-analysis to systematically evaluate the efficacy of thalidomide in AS patients. PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, Wanfang Data, and China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI) were searched for relevant studies. The Q test and I statistic were used to examine between-study heterogeneity. Fixed- or random-effects models were selected based on study heterogeneity. The risk difference (RD), absolute risk reduction (ARR), and weighted mean difference (WMD) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) were pooled for dichotomous or continuous data, as appropriate. Sensitivity analyses, funnel plots, and the Begg’s tests were also performed. Overall, 19 trials with 1471 patients were included. The effectiveness of thalidomide alone and combined with other drugs was significantly higher than the control group, and the pooled RDs were 0.15 (95% CI: 0.10–0.20, I = 0%) and 0.20 (95% CI: 0.14–0.25, I = 13.4%), respectively. Thalidomide treatment yielded significant improvements in secondary outcomes for patients with AS. The adverse reaction rate for thalidomide alone was low than that for the control group (ARR = 0.08, 95% CI: 0.01–0.15, I = 0.0%), while there was no significant difference in the safety between the group in which thalidomide was combined with other drugs and the control (ARR = 0.03, 95% CI: − 0.04–0.10, I = 41.1%). The findings suggest that thalidomide improves the effectiveness of AS treatment, which should be considered by physicians. However, owing to the inclusion of several low-quality and Chinese studies, additional rigorous randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are needed in the future to confirm the results of this meta‑analysis.
Bibliographic Details
http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?partnerID=HzOxMe3b&scp=85131097683&origin=inward; http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10067-022-06220-0; http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35635651; https://link.springer.com/10.1007/s10067-022-06220-0; https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10067-022-06220-0; https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10067-022-06220-0
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Provide Feedback
Have ideas for a new metric? Would you like to see something else here?Let us know