Article Analysis: The Efficacy and Safety of Rituximab in Patients With Active Rheumatoid Arthritis Despite Methotrexate Treatment

Name 1
Article Analysis:
Emery, P. et al., 2006. The Efficacy and Safety of Rituximab in Patients With Active
Rheumatoid Arthritis Despite Methotrexate Treatment. Arthritis & Rheumatism, 54(5), p. 390–
1400.
Student’s Name
University
Date
University

Name 2
Article Analysis:
Emery, P. et al., 2006. The Efficacy and Safety of Rituximab in Patients With Active
Rheumatoid Arthritis Despite Methotrexate Treatment. Arthritis & Rheumatism, 54(5), p.
390–1400.
1. Did the study ask a clearly focused question?
Emery, et al. (2006, p. 390–1400) study question is clear and has been stated on the objective.
The reader can easily understand the nature of the study as a randomized control trial because
from the objective and the question we can identify the study population as being patients with
rheumatoid arthritis that is resistant to antirheumatic drugs. Thus the results to be expected are
the efficacy and safety of the patient when they use rituximab in this condition. A randomized
control trial is supposed to have the control group and the general group where measures are
determined. This means that the reader can easily understand the focus of the study and the main
outcomes that will be measured in the study. As such, it becomes easy to determine what the
study is seeking to present.
2. Was this a randomized controlled trial (RCT) and was it appropriately so?
This study was carried out to determine the best way of dealing with rheumatoid arthritis that is
resistant to antirheumatic drugs. Thus the focus of the study was to determine if rituximab can be
effective in treating this type of condition. Through the use of controlled groups, it becomes easy
to determine how the drug is effective by comparing the results from the two groups.
Randomized controlled trials have been described as the best studies for determining the effects
between different groups through having a control group and the general group. The focus is to
determine how effective the study can be done. By using the blinded study approach, the
effectiveness of the study is increased since the participants are not aware of the study processes

Name 3
and do not understand the difference between the control group and the main group. Further, the
control trial was appropriate because patients were analyzed in their settings making it easy to
measure the maximum effects of the control that the patient deals with (Broekhuizen, et al. 2015,
p. 5). This research approach was fit for the study problem because it becomes easy to measure
the differences between groups when controls are used rather than studying all patients in the
same way. The difference between the control group and the main group is what defines the
control trial and gives the method effective ways of gathering and presenting research findings
since the results are based on comparing the two groups. By using the IIb, randomized, double-
blind, double-dummy, placebo-controlled, offers the best results since the placebo effect is used
to measure the effects of the treatment by not depending on the treatment itself. This increases
the findings since the researchers use the placebo to compare the results of the other real control
group. Unlike the common control trial where results are compared between the treatment and
the control group, this study allows the researcher to produce better results by comparing the
placebo with the control group.
3. Were participants appropriately allocated to intervention and control groups?
The inclusion criteria for the patients were aged between 18-80 years, had been diagnosed with
the condition, and have been on ongoing treatment of MTX for at least 12 weeks before the study
began. This means that they must have failed in the previous treatment showing no signs of
response. The patients were randomly placed in the two groups during admission to the facility
without knowing which groups they belonged to. Blinding was used so that patients do not have
preferences on either of the two groups based on the fact that the study was testing a new
treatment option for the condition. The primary analysis for the study was the intent to treat with
non-responders imputed for all categorical endpoints. The logistic regression model was used to