Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33067606›Full record

Trial reportBlood2021

Evaluation of Longitudinal Pain Study in Sickle Cell Disease (ELIPSIS) by patient-reported outcomes, actigraphy, and biomarkers.

Debra D Pittman, Patrick C Hines, David Beidler, Denis Rybin, Andrew L Frelinger, Alan D Michelson, Ke Liu, Xiufeng Gao, Jennell White, Ahmar U Zaidi and 2 more

Open access · bronzeAbstract readClinical Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in Blood, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 28 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
28citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
3.3field-weighted citation impact, top 7% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

28 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 43 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Optimizing the right time to start sickle cell therapies.Hematology. American Society of Hematology. Education Program · 2025
    Review
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Review
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

12 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Debra D PittmanPfizer Inc, Cambridge, MA.
Patrick C HinesFunctional Fluidics, Detroit, MI.
David BeidlerPfizer Inc, Cambridge, MA.
Denis RybinPfizer Inc, Cambridge, MA.
Andrew L FrelingerCenter for Platelet Research Studies, Dana-Farber/Boston Children's Cancer and Blood Disorders Center, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA; and.
Alan D MichelsonCenter for Platelet Research Studies, Dana-Farber/Boston Children's Cancer and Blood Disorders Center, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA; and.
Ke LiuFunctional Fluidics, Detroit, MI.
Xiufeng GaoFunctional Fluidics, Detroit, MI.
Jennell WhiteFunctional Fluidics, Detroit, MI.
Ahmar U ZaidiCentral Michigan University, Children's Hospital of Michigan, Detroit, MI.
Robert J CharnigoPfizer Inc, Cambridge, MA.
Michael U CallaghanCentral Michigan University, Children's Hospital of Michigan, Detroit, MI.
Pfizer (United States) · USCentral Michigan University · USHarvard University · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Clinical trials in sickle cell disease (SCD) often focus on health care utilization for painful vaso-occlusive crises (VOCs). However, no objective, quantifiable pain biomarkers exist, pain is not specific to VOCs, health care utilization varies between patients, unreported at-home VOCs likely contribute to long-term outcomes, and patient-reported outcomes are seldom considered. This noninterventional, longitudinal, 6-month study aimed to develop tools to identify VOCs in SCD patients with or without health care utilization. Participants wore an actigraph device, tracking sleep and activity. Patients with SCD used an electronic patient-reported outcome (ePRO) tool to collect data on pain, medication, fatigue, and daily function. Patients self-reported when they experienced VOC pain (VOC day). Biomarkers were collected every 3 weeks (non-VOC). Self-reported VOCs triggered at-home or in-hospital blood collection. The study enrolled 37 participants with SCD; 35 completed the study. Participants reported 114 VOC events and 346 VOC days, of which 62.3% and 78.3%, respectively, were self-treated at home. The ePRO and actigraphy captured end points of pain, functionality, fatigue, activity, and sleep; each was significantly altered on VOC days compared with non-VOC days. Biomarkers collected at home or in the hospital on VOC days were significantly altered compared with non-VOC baseline values, including leukocyte-platelet aggregates, microfluidic-based blood cell adhesion, interleukin-6, C-reactive protein, interleukin-10, tumor necrosis factor-α, and thrombin-antithrombin. The Evaluation of Longitudinal Pain Study in Sickle Cell Disease (ELIPSIS) trial shows the feasibility of accurately monitoring out-of-hospital pain by using patient-reported VOC days as potential end points for clinical trials in SCD; it describes the changes in biomarkers and activity measured by actigraphy that may enable improved identification and assessment of VOCs.

Indexed as

ActigraphyAdolescentAdultAnemia, Sickle CellAntisickling AgentsBiomarkersFemaleHumansHydroxyureaLongitudinal StudiesMaleMiddle AgedPainPatient Reported Outcome MeasuresYoung AdultAntisickling AgentsBiomarkersHydroxyurea

Identifiers

PMID33067606
PMCPMC8057263
OpenAlexW3093149880

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.