Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 301

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 15 of the 15 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Cancer risk with tumor necrosis factor alpha (TNF) inhibitors: meta‐analysis of randomized controlled trials of adalimumab, etanercept, and infliximab using patient level data

Askling, Johan, Fahrbach, Kyle, Nordstrom, Beth, Ross, Susan, Schmid, Christopher H., Symmons, Deborah·2011·Pharmacoepidemiology and Drug Safety

Abstract

Purpose: Uncertain short‐ and long‐term cancer risks with anti‐TNF therapies is a concern, and led to a recent black box warning. This meta‐analysis, requested by the European Medicines Agency, aimed at better assessing short‐term risks by using meta‐analytic techniques based on individual patient data from all corporate‐sponsored randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of adalimumab, etanercept, and infliximab. Methods: All 74 RCTs of TNF inhibitors of at least 4 weeks duration were provided to independent investigators, including case narratives for events occurring between trial start until 30 days after planned end of treatment and indicating a possible cancer. Relative risks were estimated using Bayesian piecewise exponential models. Results: One hundred thirty (0.84%) of 15 418 individuals randomized to anti‐TNF therapy were diagnosed with cancer, compared to 48 (0.64%) of 7486 individuals randomized to comparators. The relative risks associated with all anti‐TNF were 0.99 (95%CI 0.61–1.68) for cancers excluding non‐melanoma skin cancer (NMSC), and 2.02 (95%CI 1.11–3.95) for NMSC. There were indications of differences in the relative risks for the three anti‐TNF drugs, but also of differences across the cancer rates in the three comparator arms for adalimumab, etanercept, and infliximab. Conclusions: Despite a reassuring overall short‐term risk, we could neither refute nor verify that individual anti‐TNF therapies affect the short‐term clinical emergence of cancer. Despite representing the best available evidence, statistical precision, and differences in baseline cancer risk and reporting detail between trials of adilumumab, etanercept, and infliximab hampered distinction of drug‐specific from trial effects, illustrating the challenges in safety‐assessments using RCT meta‐analyses. Long‐term risk assessment requires observational studies. Copyright © 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1002/pds.2046

Cites

15 of 15 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 15 references

Cited by

See all 301

Metadata

Authors
Askling, J., Fahrbach, K., Nordstrom, B., Ross, S., Schmid, C. H., & Symmons, D.
Venue
Pharmacoepidemiology and Drug Safety
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2010-12-07
Volume
20
Issue
2
Pages
119-130
ISSN
  • 1053-8569 (ISSN-L)
  • 1099-1557
OpenAlex
W1986109277
Cited by
301
References
15
FWCI
13.85
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Cancer risk with tumor necrosis factor alpha (TNF) inhibitors: meta‐analysis of randomized controlled trials of adalimumab, etanercept, and infliximab using patient level data. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1002/pds.2046
The paper
Askling, J., Fahrbach, K., Nordstrom, B., Ross, S., Schmid, C. H., & Symmons, D. (2011). Cancer risk with tumor necrosis factor alpha (TNF) inhibitors: meta‐analysis of randomized controlled trials of adalimumab, etanercept, and infliximab using patient level data. Pharmacoepidemiology and Drug Safety. https://doi.org/10.1002/pds.2046

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.