Search

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.

Abstract Introduction Deficiencies in interleukin (IL)-1 receptor (IL-R) antagonist (DIRA) and IL-36R antagonist (DITRA) are rare genetic autoinflammatory diseases related to alterations in antagonists of the IL-1 pathway. IL-1 antagonists may represent therapeutic alternatives. Here, we aim to provide a scoping review of knowledge on use of IL-1-targeting drugs in DIRA and DITRA. Methods An a priori protocol was published, and the study was conducted using the methodology described in the Joanna Briggs Institute Reviewer’s Manual and the recently published PRISMA Extension for Scoping Review statement. A three-step search using MEDLINE and EMBASE databases until March 2018 with additional hand searching was performed. Data charting was performed. The search, article selection, and data extraction were carried out by two researchers independently. Results Twenty-four studies on use of anti-IL-1 drugs were included [15 studies including patients with diagnosis of DIRA (n = 19) and 9 studies including patients with diagnosis of DITRA (n = 9)]. Most studies followed a multicenter observational design. Among all patients who received treatment with anti-IL-1 drugs, nine and four mutations in IL1RN and IL36RN were found, respectively. Patients with DIRA were treated with anakinra (n = 17), canakinumab (n = 2), or rinolacept (n = 6). All patients with DITRA were treated with anakinra, and only one case was also treated with canakinumab. Time-to-response frequencies were evaluated as immediate, short, and medium–long term for DIRA (17/17, 15/17, and 9/10, respectively) and DITRA (7/9, 3/9, and 2/9, respectively). Most DITRA patients in whom anti-IL-1 treatment failed experienced good response to anti-tumor necrosis factor alpha or anti-IL-12/23 drugs. The safety profiles of treatments were similar in both diseases. Conclusions Evidence on use of anti-IL-1 drugs in DIRA and DITRA is scarce and based on observational studies. Larger studies with better methodological quality are needed to increase confidence in use of these drugs in patients with DIRA and DITRA.