Observational studyClinical rheumatology2016
Comparison of comorbidities of the Egyptian rheumatoid arthritis patients to the global cohort of the COMORA study: a post-hoc analysis.
Observational study in Clinical rheumatology, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed, 11 citations in OpenAlex.
- Efficacy and safety of nitazoxanide and escitalopram as adjuvant therapies in patients with rheumatoid arthritis: a randomized controlled study.European journal of clinical pharmacology · 2025Trial
- Comparative study evaluating antihistamine versus leukotriene receptor antagonist as adjuvant therapy for rheumatoid arthritis.European journal of clinical pharmacology · 2021Trial
- Article
- Review
- Rheumatology in Egypt: back to the future.Rheumatology international · 2019Review
- Epidemiology and treatment patterns of rheumatoid arthritis in a large cohort of Arab patients.PloS one · 2018Article
- Role of LncRNA-AF085935, IL-10 and IL-17 in Rheumatoid Arthritis Patients With Chronic Hepatitis C.Journal of clinical medicine research · 2017Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The aims of this study are to present the results of Egyptian RA patients included in COMORA cohort and compare it to general COMORA cohort, concerning prevalence of comorbidities, and level of application of recommendations related to detection/prevention of comorbidities. Three-hundred eight Egyptian RA patients included in the cross-sectional, observational, multi-center, international study "COMORA", were compared to the total number of 3612 RA patients. The CRF of COMORA was used in all patients. CRF collects demographic and disease characteristics, comorbidities, risk factors, and compliance with recommendations regarding management of comorbidities. Data were analyzed according to COMORA protocol. Egyptian RA patients were significantly younger, had more active disease, and were more functionally disabled. They showed more frequent use of NSAIDs, methotrexate and steroids and significantly lower use of bDMARDs when compared to non-Egyptians. Egyptian patients had the highest ever HCV prevalence, while depression, hypertension, smoking and dyslipidemia were less prevalent in Egyptians. Prevalence of malignancy risk factors was highly deficient among Egyptians; primarily due to lack of screening. Further, following recommendations for monitoring comorbidities is significantly deficient among Egyptian patients. Egyptian patients had more active disease and more functional impairment than the rest of the COMORA cohort; with lower use of bDMARDs, that is possibly related to the economic situation. Also, there is a clear gap in screening and monitoring comorbidities. Awareness among Egyptian healthcare providers (and possibly similar third-world countries) to detect and manage RA-related comorbidities is required.
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.