ArticleClinical rheumatology2016
Stability of clinical outcome measures in rheumatoid arthritis patients with stable disease defined on the basis of the EULAR response criteria.
Article in Clinical rheumatology, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Natural variation also known as measurement error is assessed in individuals in "steady state." The study aimed to examine inter-visit variations in clinical outcome measures in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) patients with stable disease defined on the basis of the EULAR response criteria. Two hundred thirty-three RA patients with stable disease defined as a change in Disease Activity Score (DAS28-CRP) ≤0.6 between two consecutive visits were identified in the Danish rheumatology registry for biological treatment (DANBIO). Clinical data from a single set of such two visits were extracted for each patient. Using the Bland-Altman method, lower and upper 95 % limits of agreement (LLoA; ULoA) between the consecutive assessments and the bias were calculated for each measure. Associations were characterized by Pearson's r-values and standard errors of estimation (SEE). The mean change in DAS28-CRP was 0.0 ± 0.3. Agreements between the assessments were close on the group level but poor on the individual level. For example, LLoA; ULoA [bias] for patient global assessment (0-100) was -28.3; 29.7 [0.7], for fatigue (0-100) -38.1; 36.3 [-0.9] and for 28 swollen joint count -3.3; 3.3 [0.0]. Inter-visit differences were poorly explained by the baseline values (r [SEE] ranging from 0.15 [12.6] for fatigue to 0.58 [1.4] for 28 tender joint count) and by changes in other outcome variables. In conclusion, outcome measures fluctuated substantially and unpredictably in individual RA patients considered in steady state. The observed between-visit differences may be interpreted to reflect natural variation or measurement error that should be taken into account when monitoring patients in the daily clinic.
Indexed as
Identifiers
27283868What 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.