Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27379740›Full record

ArticleZeitschrift fur Rheumatologie2017

[Medical treatment of rheumatoid arthritis in 2014 : Current data from the German Collaborative Arthritis Centers].

K Albrecht, D Huscher, T Eidner, S Kleinert, S Späthling-Mestekemper, S Bischoff, A Zink

Abstract readMulticenter Study
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Zeitschrift fur Rheumatologie, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 32 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
32citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

32 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Guideline
  2. Article
  3. Observational
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Review
  20. Review
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

7 authors.

K AlbrechtDeutsches Rheuma Forschungszentrum Berlin, Charitéplatz 1, 10117, Berlin, Deutschland. albrecht@drfz.de.
D HuscherDeutsches Rheuma Forschungszentrum Berlin, Charitéplatz 1, 10117, Berlin, Deutschland.
T EidnerKlinik für Innere Medizin III, Rheumatologie & Osteologie, Universitätsklinikum Jena, Jena, Deutschland.
S KleinertRheumatologische Schwerpunktpraxis, Praxisgemeinschaft Rheumatologie - Nephrologie, Erlangen, Deutschland.
S Späthling-MestekemperRheumapraxis, München, Deutschland.
S BischoffDeutsches Rheuma Forschungszentrum Berlin, Charitéplatz 1, 10117, Berlin, Deutschland.
A ZinkDeutsches Rheuma Forschungszentrum Berlin, Charitéplatz 1, 10117, Berlin, Deutschland.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundSince the introduction of biologic treatment in rheumatoid arthritis (RA), disease activity and treatment modalities have changed substantially. The current provision and developments in recent years are analyzed with annual data from the National Database of the Collaborative Arthritis Centers in Germany.

methodsTo analyze disease activity, diagnostics and treatment in RA patients in 2014 with regard to seropositivity and disease duration. Time trends from 2007-2014 are reported for disease activity (DAS28) distribution and biologic treatment.

resultsIn 2014, a total of 8,084 RA patients were analyzed: 72 % were rheumatoid factor and/or ACPA positive, the mean age was 62 years and the mean disease duration 12 years. According to DAS28, 35.9 % were in remission, 19.2 % had low, 37.1 % moderate and 7.8 % high disease activity. An increase since 2007 was only observed in patients with a disease duration >2 years. Synthetic DMARDS were used for treatment in 78 %. Biologic treatment increased from 16 % (2007) to 27 % (2014). Especially those patients with a disease duration >5 years were treated more frequently with biologics. Seronegative patients had slightly less severe mean disease activity parameters. They were treated equally frequent with DMARDS but only half as often with biologics compared to seropositive patients.

conclusionThe use of biologics in RA patients has increased since 2007; however this was not observed in patients with short disease duration. Early intensive treatment adaption seems justified to improve disease activity in the large portion of patients who do not reach low disease activity under conventional DMARDs.

Indexed as

Age DistributionAntirheumatic AgentsArthritis, RheumatoidBiological ProductsFemaleGermanyHumansMaleMiddle AgedPractice Patterns, Physicians'PrevalenceRetrospective StudiesRheumatoid FactorSeverity of Illness IndexSex DistributionTreatment OutcomeAntirheumatic AgentsBiological ProductsRheumatoid FactorBiologicsDiagnosticsDisease activityRheumatoid arthritisVaccination

Identifiers

PMID27379740

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.