Ruxolitinib in acute and chronic graft-versus-host disease: real life long-term experience in a multi-center study for adult and pediatric patients, on behalf of the GETH-TC.

Ruxolitinib has been approved for the treatment of adults and pediatric patients ≥12 years with steroid refractory graft-versus-host disease (GvHD). However, real-life studies are needed to confirm the results of clinical trials and further assess its efficacy in special populations. We performed a descriptive, retrospective, multi-center study of 352 adults and 42 pediatric patients treated with ruxolitinib for steroid-refractory acute or chronic GvHD.

Incidence, characteristics and clinical profile of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection in patients with pre-existing primary immune thrombocytopenia (ITP) in Spain.

Infections are one of the well-known precipitating factors for relapses in patients with immune thrombocytopenia (ITP). Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection can sometimes lead to or be associated with thrombocytopenia due to an increase in peripheral platelet destruction from inflammatory hyperactivation. Currently, we do not know if SARS-CoV-2 infection modifies the natural evolution of chronic or persistent ITP or if previous immunosuppression of patients with ITP influences the incidence and severity of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) in this group.

Evaluating characteristics of PROSPERO records as predictors of eventual publication of non-Cochrane systematic reviews: a meta-epidemiological study protocol.

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.

The differential impact of scientific quality, bibliometric factors, and social media activity on the influence of systematic reviews and meta-analyses about psoriasis.

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.

Abstract analysis method facilitates filtering low-methodological quality and high-bias risk systematic reviews on psoriasis interventions.

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.

Most systematic reviews of high methodological quality on psoriasis interventions are classified as high risk of bias using ROBIS tool.

Objectives: No gold standard exists to assess methodological quality of systematic reviews (SRs). Although Assessing the Methodological Quality of Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR) is widely accepted for analyzing quality, the ROBIS instrument has recently been developed. This study aimed to compare the capacity of both instruments to capture the quality of SRs concerning psoriasis interventions.

Author-paper affiliation network architecture influences the methodological quality of systematic reviews and meta-analyses of psoriasis.

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.