ArticlePloS one2016
A Nationwide Survey on Patient's versus Physician´s Evaluation of Biological Therapy in Rheumatoid Arthritis in Relation to Disease Activity and Route of Administration: The Be-Raise Study.
Article in PloS one, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
11 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 19 citations in OpenAlex.
- Pooled it
- Use of Patient-Reported Outcome Measures in Patients with Rheumatoid Arthritis in Spain and Barriers to Implementation: A Delphi Study.Advances in therapy · 2025Article
- Perceived treatment satisfaction in patients with systemic rheumatic diseases treated with biologic therapies: results of a self-reported survey.Rheumatology international · 2023Article
- Expenditure of biological drugs for rheumatoid arthritis treatment in the Brazilian public health system.Revista de saude publica · 2023Article
- Implementation of the treat-to-target approach and treatment satisfaction in patients with rheumatoid arthritis: perspectives of Chinese rheumatologists.Clinical rheumatology · 2022Article
- Re-Routing Infliximab Therapy: Subcutaneous Infliximab Opens a Path Towards Greater Convenience and Clinical Benefit.Clinical drug investigation · 2022Review
- Healthcare Professionals' Compliance with the Standard Management Guidelines towards the Use of Biological Disease-Modifying Anti-Rheumatic Drugs in Rheumatoid Arthritis Patients.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2022Article
- What Are the Preferences of Patients With Rheumatoid Arthritis for Treatment Modification? A Scoping Review.The patient · 2021Article
- What Matters Most to Patients and Rheumatologists? A Discrete Choice Experiment in Rheumatoid Arthritis.Advances in therapy · 2020Observational
- Satisfaction of Patients and Physicians with Treatments for Rheumatoid Arthritis: A Population-Based Survey in China.Patient preference and adherence · 2020Article
- Patient-reported outcome assessment of inflammatory arthritis patient experience with intravenously administered biologic therapy.Patient preference and adherence · 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
8 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesBiological treatment of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) is one of the cornerstones of current treatment strategies for the disease. Surprisingly little information exists on whether the route of administration affects patients' treatment satisfaction. It is equally unclear whether rheumatologists are able to accurately perceive their patients' appreciation. Thus, the Belgian Be-raise survey aimed to examine whether RA patient's experience of their current biological treatment coincided with the treating physician's perception.
methodsA nationwide cross-sectional survey was conducted by 67 Belgian rheumatologists providing data obtained from 550 RA patients. Patients under stable dose of biologics for at least 6 months, were enrolled consecutively and all completed questionnaires. Separate questionnaires were completed by the treating rheumatologist which evaluated their patient's perception of the route of treatment administration. This study therefore evaluates whether a treating physician perceives the satisfaction with the route of administration to the same degree as the patient.
resultsCompleted questionnaires were obtained from 293 and 257 patients who obtained treatment via the intravenous (IV) or subcutaneous (SC) route of administration, respectively. 58.4% of patients were in DAS28-CRP(3) remission. Patient satisfaction with disease control was higher (44% scored ≥ 9) than that of the treating physician (35%), regardless of the route of administration (p< 0.01). No differences were seen for the patients treated with an IV as opposed to a SC route of administration. The physician´s perception of patient's satisfaction with disease control was markedly lower for IV treated patients as opposed to SC treated patients (p< 0.001).
conclusionsPatients' satisfaction with biological treatment is high, but there is a considerable mismatch between patients´ and rheumatologists´ appreciation on the route of administration of biological therapy in RA. Physicians consistently consider IV biological therapy to be less satisfactory. Patient´s appreciation is largely dependent on disease control, irrespective of the route of administration. Therefore, and encouraging shared decision making, we suggest that physicians and patients discuss the route of administration of biologicals in an open way.
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.