Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28879053›Full record

ArticleRMD open2017

Efficacy of embedded nurse-led versus conventional physician-led follow-up in rheumatoid arthritis: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Annette de Thurah, Bente Appel Esbensen, Ida Kristiane Roelsgaard, Tove Faber Frandsen, Jette Primdahl

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in RMD open, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 29 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
29citing papers in PubMed, 3 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

29 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Trial
  8. Trial
  9. Trial
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. [Enhancing Chronic Pain Management: Exploring the Essential Contribution of Primary Care Nurses].Canadian journal of pain = Revue canadienne de la douleur · 2024
    Review
  18. Article
  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

5 authors.

Annette de ThurahDepartment of Rheumatology, Aarhus University Hospital, Aarhus, Denmark.
Bente Appel EsbensenCopenhagen Center for Arthritis Research (COPECARE), Center for Rheumatology and Spine Diseases, Centre for Head and Orthopaedics, Rigshospitalet, Copenhagen, Denmark.
Ida Kristiane RoelsgaardCopenhagen Center for Arthritis Research (COPECARE), Center for Rheumatology and Spine Diseases, Centre for Head and Orthopaedics, Rigshospitalet, Copenhagen, Denmark.
Tove Faber FrandsenDepartment of Design and Communication, University of Southern Denmark, Kolding, Denmark.
Jette PrimdahlKing Christian X's Hospital for Rheumatic Diseases, Graasten, Denmark.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveTo compare the efficacy of embedded nurse-led versus conventional physician-led follow-up on disease activity in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA).

methodsIn a systematic literature search, we identified randomised controlled trials (RCTs) reporting on the efficacy of nurse-led follow-up on disease control in patients with RA compared with physician-led follow-up. Primary outcome was disease activity indicated by Disease Activity Score (DAS)-28. Secondary outcomes were: patient satisfaction, physical disability, fatigue, self-efficacy and quality of life. Outcomes were assessed after 1-year and 2 year follow-ups.

resultsSeven studies representing five RCTs, including a total of 723 participants, were included. All but one study included stable patients in low disease activity or remission at baseline. No difference in DAS-28 was found after 1 year (mean difference (MD) -0.07 (95% CI -0.23 to 0.09)). After 2 years, a statistically significant difference was seen in favour of nurse-led follow-up (MD -0.28 (95% CI -0.53 to -0.04)). However, the difference did not reach a clinically relevant level. No difference was found in patient satisfaction after 1 year (standard mean difference (SMD) -0.17 (95 % CI -1.0 to 0.67), whereas a statistical significant difference in favour of nurse-led follow-up was seen after 2 years (SMD: 0.6 (95% CI -0.00 to 1.20)).

conclusionAfter 1 year no difference in disease activity, indicated by DAS-28, were found between embedded nurse-led follow-up compared with conventional physician-led follow-up, in RA patients with low disease activity or remission.

Indexed as

DAS28nursingrheumatoid arthritis

Identifiers

PMID28879053
PMCPMC5574437

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.