Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 369

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 36 of the 36 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Randomized Controlled Trial of Rituximab in Patients With Graves' Orbitopathy

Open access
Stan, Marius N., Garrity, James A., Carranza Leon, Barbara G., Prabin, Thapa, Bradley, Elizabeth A., Bahn, Rebecca S.·2015·The Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism

Abstract

CONTEXT: Graves' orbitopathy (GO) is a potentially sight-threatening disease for which available medical therapy is not uniformly successful. Multiple case series suggest that rituximab (RTX) may be effective therapy for GO patients. OBJECTIVE: To determine the efficacy of RTX in GO. DESIGN: It is a prospective, randomized, double-masked, placebo-controlled trial. SETTING: The study was conducted at a large academic private practice. PATIENTS: Twenty five patients with active moderate to severe GO were enrolled, and 21 completed the study to the primary endpoint. INTERVENTIONS: Two RTX infusions (1000 mg each) or two saline infusions were given 2 weeks apart. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary endpoint was a reduction in clinical activity score (CAS) assessed as a continuum and separately as improvement by ≥ 2 points at 24 weeks. Secondary endpoints included success and failure rates, proportions showing clinically significant improvement in proptosis, lid fissure width, diplopia score, lagophthalmos and disease severity, and changes in those parameters, orbital fat/ muscle volume and quality-of-life. RESULTS: The treatment groups were similar in all parameters at baseline. The last observation was carried forward if the patient discontinued prematurely. No differences were found in the proportions of patients showing CAS improvement at 24 weeks (25% placebo; 31% RTX, P = .75) or in CAS decrease from baseline to 24 or 52 weeks [mean 1.5 points (1.8 SD) placebo; 1.2 (2 SD) RTX at 24 weeks, P = .73]. Similarly, there were no differences between groups in any of the secondary endpoints at either 24 or 52 weeks. There were four adverse events (AE) in 3/12 placebo patients and 11 AE in 8/13 RTX-treated patients; 5/6 moderate or severe AE occurred in the RTX group. CONCLUSION: RTX offered no additional benefit over placebo to our patients with active and moderate to severe GO and carried with it non-negligible adverse effects.

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 · 10.1210/jc.2014-2572

Cites

36 of 36 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 36 references

Cited by

See all 369

Metadata

Authors
Stan, M. N., Garrity, J. A., Carranza Leon, B. G., Prabin, T., Bradley, E. A., & Bahn, R. S.
Venue
The Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism
Published
2015-02
Volume
100
Issue
2
Pages
432-441
ISSN
  • 0021-972X (ISSN-L)
  • 1945-7197
OpenAlex
W2158064334
Cited by
369
References
36
FWCI
15.27
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
bronze

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: Randomized Controlled Trial of Rituximab in Patients With Graves' Orbitopathy. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1210/jc.2014-2572
The paper
Stan, M. N., Garrity, J. A., Carranza Leon, B. G., Prabin, T., Bradley, E. A., & Bahn, R. S. (2015). Randomized Controlled Trial of Rituximab in Patients With Graves' Orbitopathy. The Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism. https://doi.org/10.1210/jc.2014-2572

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.