ReviewCureus2020
Biologic Therapies in Sarcoidosis and Uveitis: A Review.
Review in Cureus, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- Outdated Frameworks, Missed Opportunities: A Call for Establishing Classification Criteria for Patients with Sarcoidosis.Rheumatology and therapy · 2026Review
- Asthma in Patients With Confirmed Pulmonary Sarcoidosis.Canadian respiratory journal · 2026Review
- Sinonasal Sarcoidosis: A Scoping Review of Demographics, Clinical Presentation, and Outcomes.Laryngoscope investigative otolaryngology · 2025Article
- Refractory multisystemic sarcoidosis, a diagnosis and treatment challenge: a case report.Journal of medical case reports · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Sarcoidosis and uveitis are chronic inflammatory conditions with potentially debilitating effects on quality of life. Steroids form the mainstay standard therapy in both conditions. Biologic agents are considered to be appropriate alternatives for treatment in steroid-refractory sarcoidosis and uveitis due to the role of tumor necrosis factor (TNF) in mediating the inflammatory cascade seen in both conditions. We performed a thorough literature search using PubMed to compare the extent of use, efficacy, and safety profile of individual anti-TNF agents in the management of these conditions. Our review consists of two systematic reviews with meta-analysis, thirteen observational studies, and fifteen case series/reports. Infliximab had the widest range of organ-system usage in extra-pulmonary sarcoidosis but is equivalent to adalimumab in terms of efficacy. In uveitis, adalimumab was found to be the most efficacious agent for maintaining disease remission in adults and children with chronic non-infectious uveitis. Etanercept was neither used widely, nor was it efficacious in the management of either condition. In terms of safety profile, biologic agents were found to be well tolerated and have a similar safety profile. More randomized clinical trials are needed to inform evidence-based use of biologic agents in these conditions.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.