Extension usage examples:
Here's how our browser extension sees the article:
Article summary:
1. Response-based surrogate endpoints may hold value in newly diagnosed multiple (NDMM) due to the longer follow-up time required to evaluate progression-free survival (PFS).
2. A systematic literature review was conducted to identify randomized clinical trials and real-world studies in NDMM reporting median PFS and objective response.
3. Statistically significant correlations were identified between median PFS and overall response rate, complete response, stringent complete response, and minimal residual disease.
Article analysis:
The article is generally reliable and trustworthy as it provides a comprehensive overview of the current evidence on the use of response rates and minimal residual disease outcomes as potential surrogates for progression-free survival in newly diagnosed multiplemyeloma patients. The authors have conducted a systematic literature review of Medline, Embase, and Cochrane databases (2010-06/2020) as well as relevant congresses (2018–2020), which provides a broad range of evidence for their claims. Furthermore, they have used Pearson’s product-moment correlation weighted by sample size in each RCT arm to evaluate the associations between PFS and each response endpoint, as well as unadjusted and adjusted weighted linear regression models to estimate the gain in median PFS associated with each response endpoint.
However, there are some potential biases that should be noted when considering this article. Firstly, the authors do not provide any information on potential conflicts of interest or sources of funding for their research. This could lead to bias if any of the authors had an incentive to present certain results or conclusions that would benefit them financially or otherwise. Secondly, while the authors have provided evidence from both randomized clinical trials and real-world studies, they do not provide any information on how these studies were selected or what criteria were used for inclusion or exclusion from their analysis. This could lead to bias if certain studies were excluded due to their results not being consistent with those desired by the authors. Finally, while the authors have provided evidence from both randomized clinical trials and real-world studies, they do not provide any information on how these studies were selected or what criteria were used for inclusion or exclusion from their analysis. This could lead to bias if certain studies were excluded due to their results not being consistent with those desired by the authors.
In conclusion, this article is generally reliable and trustworthy but there are some potential biases that should be taken into consideration when evaluating its findings.