ReviewThe Journal of clinical and aesthetic dermatology
Interpreting Safety Analyses in Psoriasis Clinical Trials.
Review in The Journal of clinical and aesthetic dermatology. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Clinical trials are designed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of new drugs. However, greater focus is often placed on efficacy rather than safety. This review article discusses the fundamentals involved in evaluating the safety of a new drug. In addition, the principal challenges involved in the collection, analysis, reporting, and interpretation of safety data in clinical trials are described using relevant examples. These challenges include the fact that clinical trials are generally limited in size and duration, exclude high-risk populations, and have limited statistical power to detect rare but potentially serious adverse events (AEs) that might occur in real-world situations. Reporting of safety data across clinical trials is also inconsistent. A thorough understanding of the interpretation of safety data, especially the appropriate use of exposure-adjusted incidence rates (EAIRs) in relation to AEs, as well as the importance of comparing rates to those reported in the general population and in patients with psoriasis, is vital for making a well-informed assessment of the safety of a new drug. The information provided in this article could be useful to healthcare providers who must evaluate a large volume of safety data when providing evidence-based treatment suggestions and recommendations to their patients.
Indexed as
Identifiers
40212436PMC11980901What 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.