ArticleReumatologia2018
Methotrexate treatment for rheumatoid arthritis in Poland: Retrospective analysis of patients in routine clinical practice.
Article in Reumatologia, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Gastrointestinal adverse events among methotrexate users in rheumatoid arthritis patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Clinical rheumatology · 2026Pooled it
- Comorbidity Profiles at Diagnosis in Rheumatoid Arthritis Versus Psoriatic Arthritis: A Nationwide Polish Claims-Based Study.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Article
- Folate-Targeted Liposomal Formulations Improve Effects of Methotrexate in Murine Collagen-Induced Arthritis.Biomedicines · 2022Article
- Article
- Rheumatology in Poland.Rheumatology international · 2019Review
- Values and Correlations between C-Reactive Protein and Apolipoprotein B after Treatment with Methotrexate at Patients with Rheumatoid Arthritis.Open access Macedonian journal of medical sciences · 2019Article
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 at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesThe aim of this study was to evaluate methotrexate (MTX) treatment administered by Polish rheumatologists in everyday practice. MATERIAL AND
methodsThe study was based on a retrospective analysis of a cohort of 1957 patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA). It was conducted among 100 rheumatologists, each of whom received 20 questionnaires and completed them based on the data from their rheumatoid arthritis patients.
resultsMethotrexate was taken by 91% of patients, and 80% of them continued the treatment either as a monotherapy (65%) or concomitantly with other disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs. In 60% of the cases, therapy was initiated within six months of diagnosis. Dose modifications were observed in 76% of cases and were contingent on different factors, e.g. lack of efficacy, presence of adverse events. The most prevalent adverse events were nausea and vomiting, weakness, and elevated liver enzyme activity. The most common initial dose of MTX was 10 or 15 mg/week. An increase in dose to the maximum of 25 mg/week was observed in 36% of cases, with continuation for 27% of patients. Treatment interruption was noted in 21% of patients, predominantly due to MTX intolerance; however, in 13% of cases, it was due to patient choice.
conclusionsMethotrexate is the most common agent used to treat rheumatoid arthritis. Dose modifications are often applied to maximise efficacy and reduce adverse reactions, which could lead to withdrawal. Methotrexate is an effective drug for treatment of RA when used according to current recommendations. To optimise MTX therapy, regular medical visits are required.
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.