ArticleClinical rheumatology2018
The patient experience of musculoskeletal imaging tests for investigation of inflammatory arthritis: a mixed-methods study.
Article in Clinical rheumatology, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- A glance into the future of gout.Therapeutic advances in musculoskeletal disease · 2022Review
- Article
- Provider Perspectives of Patient Experiences in Primary Care Imaging.Journal of the American Board of Family Medicine : JABFMArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
The objective of this study was to understand the patient experience of musculoskeletal imaging tests for investigation of inflammatory arthritis and factors that contribute to this experience. We conducted a thematic analysis of semi-structured interviews with 33 patients who had a recent peripheral joint musculoskeletal imaging test for investigation of inflammatory arthritis. Data from these interviews were used to generate an 18-item questionnaire which was posted to rheumatology clinic patients within 6 weeks of peripheral joint imaging. Variables associated with the overall experience of the test were analysed using stepwise linear regression. Analysis of the interviews identified six themes: knowledge about the test, awareness of potential harm, the role of imaging in clinical care, discomfort, experience of waiting and 'seeing is believing'. Completed questionnaires were available from 132 patients. In regression analysis, a strong negative association was observed between the 'discomfort during the test' item and the overall experience of the test (standardised beta -0.35, p < 0.001). 'Staff made the experience better' (0.26, p < 0.001) and 'information provided' (0.28, p < 0.001) were positively associated with the overall experience of the test. For those who viewed their images, 'looking at the images with my doctor made me feel more involved in my care' (0.24, p = 0.022) was also associated positively with overall experience. Factors before, during and after a musculoskeletal imaging test contribute to the patient experience. The overall experience is most influenced by patient discomfort and interactions with staff during the test, information provided and viewing images to improve patient involvement in clinical care.
Indexed as
Identifiers
28730270What 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.