ArticleRMD open2018
Neutropaenia in early rheumatoid arthritis: frequency, predicting factors, natural history and outcome.
Article in RMD open, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 2 of them syntheses 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- Blood-test monitoring strategies for patients established on immune-suppressing drugs: a mixed-methods study.Health technology assessment (Winchester, England) · 2026Pooled it
- Pooled it
- Neutropenia and Felty Syndrome in the Twenty-First Century: Redefining Ancient Concepts in Rheumatoid Arthritis Patients.Journal of clinical medicine · 2024Article
- What have we learnt from the inhibition of IL-6 in RA and what are the clinical opportunities for patient outcomes?Therapeutic advances in musculoskeletal disease · 2024Review
- How do multiple long-term conditions impact on the cost-of-illness in early rheumatoid arthritis?RMD open · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo determine the frequency, severity and natural history of neutropaenia in early rheumatoid arthritis (RA), explore its associations with clinical features and assess its impact on clinical management.
methodsThe Scottish Early Rheumatoid Arthritis inception cohort prospectively recruited patients with newly diagnosed RA and followed them up every 6 months. Patients with RA who developed at least one episode of neutropaenia (grade 1: <2.0×10^9/L; grade 2: <1.5×10^9/L; grade 3: <1.0×10^9/L; grade 4: <0.5×10^9/L) were compared with those who did not. Comparisons were also made between patients who experienced one or more episodes of neutropaenia and between patients with different neutropaenia grades.
results77 neutropaenia episodes were recorded in 58 of 771 (7.5%) patients with RA, who were followed up for a median (range) of 18 (6-48) months. Neutropaenia occurred at a median (range) of 12 (0-120) months after RA diagnosis. The majority had mild neutropaenia (grade 1: n=42; grade 2: n=14; grade 3: n=1; grade 4: n=1). Neutropaenia was transient (single episode) in the majority (44; 75.8%) of cases but led to treatment discontinuation in 14 (24.1%) patients. Patients who developed neutropaenia were more likely to be female (p=0.01) and non-smokers (p=0.007) and had lower baseline neutrophil levels (p<0.0001). Binomial regression analysis confirmed the latter (p<0.0001, B: -0.491) as neutropaenia predictor. The rate of infections did not differ between patients who developed neutropaenia and those who did not (p=0.878).
conclusionNeutropaenia was a common finding in this cohort. It was usually mild, transient and not associated with increased infection rates. Neutropaenia occurrence was associated with non-smoking, female gender and lower baseline neutrophil levels.
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.