ArticleAnnals of the rheumatic diseases2010
Measure of function in rheumatoid arthritis: individualised or classical scales?
Article in Annals of the rheumatic diseases, 2010. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
12 citing papers in PubMed.
- Silymarin Supplementation in Active Rheumatoid Arthritis: Outcomes of a Pilot Randomized Controlled Clinical Study.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2024Trial
- Reducing arthritis fatigue impact: two-year randomised controlled trial of cognitive behavioural approaches by rheumatology teams (RAFT).Annals of the rheumatic diseases · 2019Trial
- Measuring the positive psychological well-being of people with rheumatoid arthritis: a cross-sectional validation of the subjective vitality scale.Arthritis research & therapy · 2015Trial
- CD19 CAR T cell therapy for treatment-refractory seropositive rheumatoid arthritis: a phase 1 trial.Nature medicine · 2026Article
- Cross-sectional analysis of socioeconomic determinants of functional disability in rheumatoid arthritis patients: a single-region experience from Saudi Arabia.Frontiers in medicine · 2026Article
- Comparison of IgG4 with inflammatory cytokines (IL-1, IL-6 and TNFα) in rheumatoid arthritis.Frontiers in immunology · 2025Article
- The Extent and Nature of Functional Limitations According to the Health Assessment Questionnaire Disability Index in Patients with Rheumatoid Arthritis and Severe Functional Disability.Journal of clinical medicine · 2024Article
- Patient-centric assessment of rheumatoid arthritis using a smartwatch and bespoke mobile app in a clinical setting.Scientific reports · 2023Article
- Re-conceptualizing functional status through experiences of young adults with inflammatory arthritis.Rheumatology international · 2020Article
- Persons with rheumatoid arthritis challenge the relevance of the health assessment questionnaire: a qualitative study of patient perception.BMC musculoskeletal disorders · 2017Article
- Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe Health Assessment Questionnaire Disability Index (HAQ-DI) is the most widely used measure of function in rheumatoid arthritis (RA).
objectiveTo evaluate individualised forms of the HAQ-DI and thus enhance the incorporation of patients' views in outcome assessment. PATIENTS AND
methodsHAQ-DI data were prospectively obtained from 370 outpatients with RA treated with leflunomide over a 6-month period. At baseline and final visits, patients had to rate the importance they attached to each activity addressed by the 20 HAQ-DI items, and to select the five activities they considered the most important. Different individualised scales were evaluated: scales preserving all domains, in which the score for each item is multiplied by or added to its importance; and scales involving, for each patient, only the five most important items. The psychometric properties of these scales were compared with those of the HAQ-DI.
resultsFor each HAQ-DI item, severity and importance scores were weakly correlated. Scores for all individualised scales were highly correlated with the HAQ-DI score (r(s)>0.75). All scales had a good internal consistency (Cronbach's alpha 0.87-0.88). Compared with the HAQ-DI, individualised scales did not have better sensitivity to change (standardised response mean 0.64-0.69 vs 0.74).
conclusionIndividualised scales have similar properties to the HAQ-DI. However, individualised questionnaires measuring importance gave complementary information to the measure of disability. Individualisation is probably not needed for group assessment in all randomised controlled trials but, the use of individualised questionnaires may be clinically relevant for individual patients with RA.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.