Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27893771›Full record

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.

Sophie De Mits, Jan Lenaerts, Bert Vander Cruyssen, Herman Mielants, René Westhovens, Patrick Durez, Dirk Elewaut, Be-Raise study group

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
0.9field-weighted citation impact, top 21% 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

11 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 19 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Observational
  10. Article
  11. 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

8 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.

Sophie De MitsDepartment of Rheumatology, Ghent University Hospital, Ghent, Belgium.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-4541-9895
Jan LenaertsDepartment of Rheumatology, Reuma-Instituut Hasselt, Leuven University Hospital, Leuven, Belgium.
Bert Vander CruyssenDepartment of Rheumatology, Sint Jozef Hospital Bornem, OLV Hospital Aalst, Aalst, Belgium.
Herman MielantsDepartment of Rheumatology, Ghent University Hospital, Ghent, Belgium.
René WesthovensSkeletal Biology and Engineering Research Center, Department of Development and Regeneration KU Leuven; Rheumatology, University Hospitals Leuven, Leuven, Belgium.
Patrick DurezDepartment of Rheumatology, Université Catholique de Louvain UCL, Louvain-la-Neuve, Belgium.
Dirk ElewautDepartment of Rheumatology, Ghent University Hospital, Ghent, Belgium.
Be-Raise study group
Ghent University Hospital · BEKU Leuven · BEOnze Lieve Vrouwziekenhuis Hospital · BEUCLouvain · BE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

Administration, IntravenousAdultAgedArthritis, RheumatoidBiological ProductsCross-Sectional StudiesFemaleHealth Care SurveysHumansInjections, SubcutaneousMaleMiddle AgedPatient SatisfactionPhysiciansSeverity of Illness IndexTreatment OutcomeBiological Products

Identifiers

PMID27893771
PMCPMC5125609
OpenAlexW2559245687

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.