ArticleRheumatology international2019
Discordance between doctor and patient assessments and non-adherence to subcutaneous biological drugs.
Article in Rheumatology international, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Physician Adherence to Treat-to-Target and Practice Guidelines in Rheumatoid Arthritis.Journal of clinical medicine · 2019Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
To estimate the agreement level between patient and physician assessment of disease activity and to explore whether agreement is associated with adherence to subcutaneous (SC) biological drugs in rheumatoid arthritis (RA). Cross-sectional study of RA patients who had been prescribed a SC biological drug in the past 12-18 months was performed. Patients and physicians global disease activity on visual analogue scale (VAS) were collected. Disagreement was defined as an absolute difference ≥ 3 points between VAS scores. Adherence was assessed by the Medication Possession Ratio (MPR), considering adherence an MPR > 80%. We analysed 360 patients of whom 15.5% presented disagreement with their physicians. The mean patient global VAS was 5.75 ± 1.8 (median 5.5 [5-7]) in the disagreement group versus 2.7 ± 2.2 (median 2 [1-4]) in the agreement group (p < 0.001). There were also differences in physicians global VAS between groups (p = 0.01). The non-adherence to SC biological drugs rate was 10.7% and 14.5% in the disagreement and agreement groups (p = 0.45). No association between adherence and discordance was found. Disagreement in the global disease activity between patients and physicians was detected in 15.5% of patients. In general, patients perceived higher disease activity. No associations between patient-physician disagreement in VAS and adherence were observed.
Indexed as
Identifiers
30989332What 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.