Search

IntroductionThis scoping review explores the effectiveness of IL-1 pathway inhibitors in managing PSTPIP1-associated inflammatory diseases (PAID). These diseases are marked by abnormal IL-1 pathway activation due to genetic mutations.MethodsOur methodology adhered to a pre-published protocol and involved a thorough search of MEDLINE and EMBASE databases up to February 2022, following the Joanna Briggs Institute Reviewer’s Manual and the PRISMA Extension for Scoping Reviews. The review included studies reporting on IL-1 pathway inhibitor use in PAID patients.ResultsFrom an initial pool of 5,225 articles, 36 studies involving 43 patients were selected. The studies predominantly used observational designs and exhibited diversity in patient demographics, treatment approaches, and outcomes. Anakinra and canakinumab demonstrated promise in treating sterile pyogenic arthritis, pyoderma gangrenosum, and acne (PAPA) and PSTPIP1-associated myeloid-related-proteinemia inflammatory (PAMI) syndromes, with scant data on other syndromes. Notably, there was a paucity of information on the adverse effects of these treatments, necessitating cautious interpretation of their safety profile.ConclusionCurrent evidence on IL-1 pathway inhibitors for PAID is primarily from observational studies and remains limited. Rigorous research with larger patient cohorts is imperative for more definitive conclusions. Collaborative efforts among specialized research centers and international health initiatives are key to advancing this field.

Abstract Background Epidemiology and the reporting characteristics of systematic reviews (SRs) and meta-analyses (MAs) are well known. However, no study has analyzed the influence of protocol features on the probability that a study’s results will be finally reported, thereby indirectly assessing the reporting bias of International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO) registration records. Objective The objective of this study is to explore which factors are associated with a higher probability that results derived from a non-Cochrane PROSPERO registration record for a systematic review will be finally reported as an original article in a scientific journal. Methods/design The PROSPERO repository will be web scraped to automatically and iteratively obtain all completed non-Cochrane registration records stored from February 2011 to December 2017. Downloaded records will be screened, and those with less than 90% fulfilled or are duplicated (i.e., those sharing titles and reviewers) will be excluded. Manual and human-supervised automatic methods will be used for data extraction, depending on the data source (fields of PROSPERO registration records, bibliometric databases, etc.). Records will be classified into published, discontinued, and abandoned review subgroups. All articles derived from published reviews will be obtained through multiple parallel searches using the full protocol “title” and/or “list reviewers” in MEDLINE/PubMed databases and Google Scholar. Reviewer, author, article, and journal metadata will be obtained using different sources. R and Python programming and analysis languages will be used to describe the datasets; perform text mining, machine learning, and deep learning analyses; and visualize the data. We will report the study according to the recommendations for meta-epidemiological studies adapted from the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement for SRs and MAs. Discussion This meta-epidemiological study will explore, for the first time, characteristics of PROSPERO records that may be associated with the publication of a completed systematic review. The evidence may help to improve review workflow performance in terms of research topic selection, decision-making regarding team selection, planning relationships with funding sources, implementing literature search strategies, and efficient data extraction and analysis. We expect to make our results, datasets, and R and Python code scripts publicly available during the third quarter of 2018.

Abstract Background Article summaries’ information and structure may influence researchers/clinicians’ decisions to conduct deeper full-text analyses. Specifically, abstracts of systematic reviews (SRs) and meta-analyses (MA) should provide structured summaries for quick assessment. This study explored a method for determining the methodological quality and bias risk of full-text reviews using abstract information alone. Methods Systematic literature searches for SRs and/or MA about psoriasis were undertaken on MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane database. For each review, quality, abstract-reporting completeness, full-text methodological quality, and bias risk were evaluated using Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses for abstracts (PRISMA-A), Assessing the Methodological Quality of Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR), and ROBIS tools, respectively. Article-, author-, and journal-derived metadata were systematically extracted from eligible studies using a piloted template, and explanatory variables concerning abstract-reporting quality were assessed using univariate and multivariate-regression models. Two classification models concerning SRs’ methodological quality and bias risk were developed based on per-item and total PRISMA-A scores and decision-tree algorithms. This work was supported, in part, by project ICI1400136 (JR). No funding was received from any pharmaceutical company. Results This study analysed 139 SRs on psoriasis interventions. On average, they featured 56.7% of PRISMA-A items. The mean total PRISMA-A score was significantly higher for high-methodological-quality SRs than for moderate- and low-methodological-quality reviews. SRs with low-bias risk showed higher total PRISMA-A values than reviews with high-bias risk. In the final model, only ’authors per review > 6’ (OR: 1.098; 95%CI: 1.012-1.194), ’academic source of funding’ (OR: 3.630; 95%CI: 1.788-7.542), and ’PRISMA-endorsed journal’ (OR: 4.370; 95%CI: 1.785-10.98) predicted PRISMA-A variability. Reviews with a total PRISMA-A score

This research-on-research study describes efforts to develop non-Cochrane systematic reviews (SRs) by analyzing demographical and time-course collaborations between international institutions using protocols registered in the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO) or published in scientific journals. We have published an a priori protocol to develop this study. Protocols published in scientific journals were searched using the MEDLINE and Embase databases; the query terms "Systematic review" [Title] AND "protocol" [Title] were searched from February 2011 to December 2017. Protocols registered at PROSPERO during the same period were obtained by web scraping all non-Cochrane records with a Python script. After excluding protocols that had a fulfillment or duplication rate of less than 90%, they were classified as published "only in PROSPERO", "only in journals", or in "journals and PROSPERO". Results of data and metadata extraction using text mining processes were curated by two reviewers. These Datasets and R scripts are freely available to facilitate reproducibility. We obtained 20,814 protocols of non-Cochrane SRs. While "unique protocols" by reviewers' institutions from 60 countries were the most frequent, a median of 6 (2-150) institutions from 130 different countries were involved in the preparation of "collaborative protocols". The highest Ranked countries involved in overall protocol production were the UK, the U.S., Australia, Brazil, China, Canada, the Netherlands, Germany, and Italy. Most protocols were registered only in PROSPERO. However, the number of protocols published in scientific journals (924) or in both PROSPERO and journals (807) has increased over the last three years. Syst Rev and BMJ Open published more than half of the total protocols. While the more productive countries were involved in "unique" and "collaborative protocols", less productive countries only participated in "collaborative protocols" that were mainly published in PROSPERO. Our results suggest that, although most countries were involved in solitary production of protocols for non-Cochrane SRs during the study period, it would be useful to develop new strategies to promote international collaborations, especially with less productive countries.

Moderate-to-severe psoriasis is associated with significant comorbidity, an impaired quality of life, and increased medical costs, including those associated with treatments. Systematic reviews (SRs) and meta-analyses (MAs) of randomized clinical trials are considered two of the best approaches to the summarization of high-quality evidence. However, methodological bias can reduce the validity of conclusions from these types of studies and subsequently impair the quality of decision making. As co-authorship is among the most well-documented forms of research collaboration, the present study aimed to explore whether authors' collaboration methods might influence the methodological quality of SRs and MAs of psoriasis. Methodological quality was assessed by two raters who extracted information from full articles. After calculating total and per-item Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR) scores, reviews were classified as low (0-4), medium (5-8), or high (9-11) quality. Article metadata and journal-related bibliometric indices were also obtained. A total of 741 authors from 520 different institutions and 32 countries published 220 reviews that were classified as high (17.2%), moderate (55%), or low (27.7%) methodological quality. The high methodological quality subnetwork was larger but had a lower connection density than the low and moderate methodological quality subnetworks; specifically, the former contained relatively fewer nodes (authors and reviews), reviews by authors, and collaborators per author. Furthermore, the high methodological quality subnetwork was highly compartmentalized, with several modules representing few poorly interconnected communities. In conclusion, structural differences in author-paper affiliation network may influence the methodological quality of SRs and MAs on psoriasis. As the author-paper affiliation network structure affects study quality in this research field, authors who maintain an appropriate balance between scientific quality and productivity are more likely to develop higher quality reviews.

IntroductionThe Janus kinase–signal transducer and activator of transcription (JAK/STAT) pathway are known to be involved in inflammatory immune-mediated skin diseases, including psoriasis. The development of drugs targeting the JAK/STAT signaling pathway presents new treatment opportunities for psoriasis. However, the application of JAK inhibitors for the treatment of dermatological disorders is still in its early stages of development. This review summarizes available evidence in an attempt to identify knowledge gaps for conducting further research studies and improving clinical decision-making.ObjectiveThe objective of this study is to conduct a scoping review of the use of drugs targeting the JAK/STAT pathway in the treatment of psoriasis.MethodsA priori protocol for scoping review was published in 2019. The Joanna Briggs Institute Reviewer's Manual and the PRISMA Extension for Scoping Review were used for the review. MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, Scopus, and Web of Science databases and ClinicalTrials registry were referred to in April 2019 and March 2021, respectively. References in English involving evidence on the use of drugs targeting the JAK/STAT pathway in patients with psoriasis were included. Data charting was performed by two authors using tables and figures.ResultsThe evidence found on the efficacy and safety of drugs targeting the JAK/STAT pathway in patients with psoriasis comes from 118 articles reporting the results of 34 randomized clinical trials (RCTs). Nine different drugs administered through various routes were identified (systemic: peficitinib, baricitinib, solcitinib, itacitinib, abrocitinib, deucravacitinib, and brepocitinib; topical: ruxolitinib; and both: tofacitinib). Knowledge articles are mainly created and published by pharmaceutical companies and authors through their own funding or by those related to them. Only tofacitinib and deucravacitinib have undergone phase III clinical trials, being the only ones tested with active comparators etanercept and apremilast, respectively. Proportions of Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI) and Physician's Global Assessment (PGA) were the efficacy variables most frequently studied in systemic treatments. Only two RCTs declared the safety data collected by systematic assessment; the only systemic drug with phase III data was tofacitinib. Tofacitinib 5 mg two times daily (BID)/10 mg BID efficacy was compared with etanercept 50 mg/week and a placebo. At 12–16 weeks, PASI 75/PGA 01 ranges were as follows: 38.07–80%/37.16–67.4% for tofacitinib 5 mg BID; 54.79–100%/50–75.6% for tofacitinib 10 mg BID; 58.8/66.8% for etanercept, date from one only study; and 0–33.3%/9.04–33.3% for the placebo group. Other drugs in earlier stages of development showed values within these ranges. The most frequent adverse events (AEs) were nasopharyngitis and upper respiratory tract infections in all treatment groups.ConclusionThere is increasing evidence on the use of drugs targeting the JAK/STAT pathway as a treatment for psoriasis, although they are in the early phases of development. The trials conducted to date have been financed directly or indirectly by the pharmaceutical industry, which must be taken into account when interpreting the results of the trials. Psoriasis treatment is currently symptomatic and could potentially present a significant risk of toxicity. Therefore, the design of principal efficacy outcome measures considering the impact of the outcome on quality of life and a drug assessment methodology aimed at improving safety would probably strengthen the evidence and decision-making process.

Researchers are increasingly using on line social networks to promote their work. Some authors have suggested that measuring social media activity can predict the impact of a primary study (i.e., whether or not an article will be highly cited). However, the influence of variables such as scientific quality, research disclosures, and journal characteristics on systematic reviews and meta-analyses has not yet been assessed. The present study aims to describe the effect of complex interactions between bibliometric factors and social media activity on the impact of systematic reviews and meta-analyses about psoriasis (PROSPERO 2016: CRD42016053181). Methodological quality was assessed using the Assessing the Methodological Quality of Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR) tool. Altmetrics, which consider Twitter, Facebook, and Google+ mention counts as well as Mendeley and SCOPUS readers, and corresponding article citation counts from Google Scholar were obtained for each article. Metadata and journal-related bibliometric indices were also obtained. One-hundred and sixty-four reviews with available altmetrics information were included in the final multifactorial analysis, which showed that social media and impact factor have less effect than Mendeley and SCOPUS readers on the number of cites that appear in Google Scholar. Although a journal's impact factor predicted the number of tweets (OR, 1.202; 95% CI, 1.087-1.049), the years of publication and the number of Mendeley readers predicted the number of citations in Google Scholar (OR, 1.033; 95% CI, 1.018-1.329). Finally, methodological quality was related neither with bibliometric influence nor social media activity for systematic reviews. In conclusion, there seems to be a lack of connectivity between scientific quality, social media activity, and article usage, thus predicting scientific success based on these variables may be inappropriate in the particular case of systematic reviews.