Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27084310›Full record

ReviewRheumatology (Oxford, England)2016

Harmonising data collection from osteoarthritis studies to enable stratification: recommendations on core data collection from an Arthritis Research UK clinical studies group.

Sarah R Kingsbury, Nadia Corp, Fiona E Watt, David T Felson, Terence W O'Neill, Cathy A Holt, Richard K Jones, Philip G Conaghan, Arthritis Research UK Osteoarthritis and Crystal Disease Clinical Studies Group working group, Nigel K Arden

Open access · bronzeAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Rheumatology (Oxford, England), 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
0.6field-weighted citation impact, top 27% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

9 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 11 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. New Drug Treatments for Osteoarthritis: What is on the Horizon?European medical journal. Rheumatology · 2017
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

10 authors at 5 institutions in 2 countries.

Sarah R KingsburyInstitute of Rheumatic and Musculoskeletal Medicine and NIHR Leeds Musculoskeletal Biomedical Research Unit, University of Leeds, Leeds s.r.kingsbury@leeds.ac.uk.
Nadia CorpArthritis Research UK Primary Care Centre, Research Institute for Primary Care and Health Sciences, Keele University, Keele.
Fiona E WattArthritis Research UK Centre for Osteoarthritis Pathogenesis, Kennedy Institute of Rheumatology, Nuffield Department of Orthopaedics, Rheumatology and Musculoskeletal Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford.
David T FelsonArthritis Research UK Epidemiology Unit, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK Clinical Epidemiology Unit, Boston University School of Medicine, Boston, MA, USA.
Terence W O'NeillArthritis Research UK Epidemiology Unit, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK.
Cathy A HoltSchool of Engineering, Cardiff University, Wales.
Richard K JonesSchool of Health Sciences, University of Salford, Manchester.
Philip G ConaghanInstitute of Rheumatic and Musculoskeletal Medicine and NIHR Leeds Musculoskeletal Biomedical Research Unit, University of Leeds, Leeds.
Arthritis Research UK Osteoarthritis and Crystal Disease Clinical Studies Group working group
Nigel K ArdenArthritis Research UK Centre for Sport, Exercise and Osteoarthritis, University of Oxford MRC Lifecourse Epidemiology Unit, University of Southampton, Southampton, UK.
University of Leeds · GBBoston University · USUniversity of Manchester · GBUniversity of Oxford · GBUniversity of Salford · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveTreatment of OA by stratifying for commonly used and novel therapies will likely improve the range of effective therapy options and their rational deployment in this undertreated, chronic disease. In order to develop appropriate datasets for conducting post hoc analyses to inform approaches to stratification for OA, our aim was to develop recommendations on the minimum data that should be recorded at baseline in all future OA interventional and observational studies.

methodsAn Arthritis Research UK study group comprised of 32 experts used a Delphi-style approach supported by a literature review of systematic reviews to come to a consensus on core data collection for OA studies.

resultsThirty-five systematic reviews were used as the basis for the consensus group discussion. For studies with a primary structural endpoint, core domains for collection were defined as BMI, age, gender, racial origin, comorbidities, baseline OA pain, pain in other joints and occupation. In addition to the items generalizable to all anatomical sites, joint-specific domains included radiographic measures, surgical history and anatomical factors, including alignment. To demonstrate clinical relevance for symptom studies, the collection of mental health score, self-efficacy and depression scales were advised in addition to the above.

conclusionsCurrently it is not possible to stratify patients with OA into therapeutic groups. A list of core and optional data to be collected in all OA interventional and observational studies was developed, providing a basis for future analyses to identify predictors of progression or response to treatment.

Indexed as

Clinical Trials as TopicConsensusData CollectionDisease ProgressionFemaleHumansMaleMusculoskeletal PainObservational Studies as TopicOsteoarthritisReview Literature as TopicUnited Kingdomclinical trialsosteoarthritispersonalized medicineprognosisstratification

Identifiers

PMID27084310
PMCPMC4957675
OpenAlexW2340085169

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.