↓ Skip to main content

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Anti‐TNF agents for paediatric psoriasis

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, November 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (87th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

1 policy source
8 X users
2 Facebook pages
3 Wikipedia pages


30 Dimensions

Readers on

338 Mendeley
Anti‐TNF agents for paediatric psoriasis
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, November 2015
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd010017.pub2
Pubmed ID

Gloria Sanclemente, Ruth Murphy, Javier Contreras, Hermenegildo García, Xavier Bonfill Cosp


Psoriasis is a chronic skin disease that may develop at any age. Estimates for the United States and Europe suggest that psoriasis accounts for 4% of skin diseases in children. In most cases, the condition is mild and can be treated with creams. However, a small percentage of children have moderate to severe disease that requires drugs, such as ciclosporin or methotrexate, and some will require injections with newer biological agents, such as anti-TNF (tumour necrosis factor) drugs. Anti-TNF drugs (among them etanercept, infliximab, and adalimumab) are designed to reduce inflammation in the body caused by tumour necrosis factor. Evidence for the safety and efficacy of these biological agents in paediatric psoriasis is lacking. To assess the efficacy and safety of anti-TNF agents for the treatment of paediatric psoriasis. We searched the following databases up to July 2015: the Cochrane Skin Group Specialised Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2015, Issue 6), MEDLINE (from 1946), Embase (from 1974), and LILACS (from 1982). We also searched 13 trials registers and checked the reference lists of included studies and key review articles for further references to relevant randomised controlled trials (RCTs). We handsearched conference proceedings and attempted to contact trial authors and relevant pharmaceutical manufacturers. We searched the US Food and Drug Administration's and European Medicines Agency's adverse effects databases. All relevant RCTs that evaluated the efficacy and safety of anti-TNF agents for the treatment of chronic plaque psoriasis in individuals less than 18 years of age. Two review authors independently checked titles and abstracts and performed data extraction and 'Risk of bias' assessment of the included studies. One review author entered data into Review Manager (RevMan), and a second review author checked the data. We also attempted to obtain unclear data from the trial authors where possible.Our primary outcomes were investigator-assessed number of participants achieving a 75% improvement in Psoriasis Area and Severity Index-75 (PASI 75) compared to baseline, improvement in quality of life using an instrument such as Children's Dermatology Life Quality Index (CDLQI), and adverse effects. Our secondary outcomes included the proportion of participants achieving PASI 50 and the Physician's Global Assessment (PGA). We included one study with 211 participants (median age 13 years), in which etanercept (dosage ranged from 0.8 to 50 mg per kilogram of body weight) was compared to placebo. Follow-up was over a 48-week period.At week 12, 57% versus 11% who received etanercept or placebo, respectively, achieved the PASI 75 (risk ratio 4.95, 95% confidence interval (CI) 2.83 to 8.65; high-quality evidence). Absolute risk reduction and the number needed to treat to obtain a benefit with etanercept was 45% (95% CI 33.95 to 56.40) and 2 (95% CI 1.77 to 2.95), respectively.The percentage improvement from baseline of the CDLQI scores at week 12 was better in the etanercept group than the placebo group (52.3% versus 17.5%, respectively (P = 0.0001)). Analysis between the groups showed an effect size that was clinically important (mean difference 2.30, 95% CI 0.85 to 3.75; high-quality evidence). However, means, medians, and minimal important difference results and results of the Pediatric Quality of Life Inventory, Stein Impact on Family Scale, and Harter Self-Perception Profile for Children scores must be interpreted with caution, as they were not prespecified outcomes.Three serious adverse events were reported, but they were resolved without sequelae. Deaths or other events such as malignant tumours, opportunistic infections, tuberculosis, or demyelination were not reported in the included study.Also, 13% of participants in the placebo group and 53% in the etanercept group had a PGA of clear or almost clear (risk ratio 3.96, 95% CI 2.36 to 6.66; high-quality evidence) at week 12. This review found only one RCT evaluating the use of this type of biological therapy. Although the risk of publication bias was high, as we included only one industry-sponsored RCT, the risk of allocation, selection, performance, attrition, and selective reporting biases for all outcomes (except for CDLQI) was low, and no short-term serious adverse events were found.We can conclude, based on this single included study, that etanercept seems to be efficacious and safe (at least in the short term) for the treatment of paediatric psoriasis. However, as the GRADE approach refers not to individual studies but to a body of evidence, we shall wait for the results of the ongoing studies in a future update of this review. In addition, future studies should evaluate quality-of-life endpoints established a priori and standardise primary outcome measures such as PASI 75, and should include the PGA as a secondary endpoint. Also, collating and reporting adverse events uniformly is required to better evaluate safety.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 8 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 338 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Chile 1 <1%
United States 1 <1%
Qatar 1 <1%
Brazil 1 <1%
Unknown 334 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 46 14%
Researcher 38 11%
Student > Bachelor 31 9%
Student > Ph. D. Student 27 8%
Student > Postgraduate 21 6%
Other 65 19%
Unknown 110 33%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 112 33%
Nursing and Health Professions 38 11%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 14 4%
Social Sciences 9 3%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 8 2%
Other 35 10%
Unknown 122 36%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 11. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 10 August 2022.
All research outputs
of 25,457,858 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
of 11,499 outputs
Outputs of similar age
of 393,565 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
of 265 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,457,858 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 87th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,499 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 40.0. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 51% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 393,565 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 87% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 265 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 38th percentile – i.e., 38% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.