ArticleArthritis research & therapy2020
Patient preferences on rheumatoid arthritis second-line treatment: a discrete choice experiment of Swedish patients.
Article in Arthritis research & therapy, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 21 papers, 4 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
21 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 32 citations in OpenAlex.
- Understanding Patient Preferences for Medication Process Attributes: A Systematic Literature Review.The patient · 2026Pooled it
- The Evolving Landscape of Discrete Choice Experiments in Health Economics: A Systematic Review.PharmacoEconomics · 2025Pooled it
- Pooled it
- Systematic review of quantitative preference studies of treatments for rheumatoid arthritis among patients and at-risk populations.Arthritis research & therapy · 2022Pooled it
- How do patients with primary hypertension assess different endpoints of their treatment? a survey using analytic hierarchy process.Journal of human hypertension · 2026Article
- Advances in the Diagnosis and Treatment of Rheumatoid Arthritis: From Pathological Mechanisms to Integrated Chinese and Western Medicine Therapeutic Strategies.International journal of general medicine · 2026Review
- Janus kinase inhibitors show a longer drug survival than biologics in a real-world cohort of patients with rheumatoid arthritis - a retrospective analysis from the RHADAR database.Rheumatology international · 2025Article
- Roles of Immunity and Endogenous Retroelements in the Pathogenesis of Rheumatoid Arthritis and Treatment Strategies.Functional & integrative genomics · 2025Review
- Nano-based Therapeutics for Rheumatoid Arthritis: Recent Patents and Development.Recent patents on nanotechnology · 2025Review
- Review
- Patient versus physician preferences for lipid-lowering drug therapy: A discrete choice experiment.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2024Article
- Article
- Preferences for preventive treatments for rheumatoid arthritis: discrete choice survey in the UK, Germany and Romania.Rheumatology (Oxford, England) · 2023Article
- Article
- Effectiveness of baricitinib and tofacitinib compared with bDMARDs in RA: results from a cohort study using nationwide Swedish register data.Rheumatology (Oxford, England) · 2022Article
- Article
- Functional capacity vs side effects: treatment attributes to consider when individualising treatment for patients with rheumatoid arthritis.Clinical rheumatology · 2022Article
- Treatment Satisfaction, Patient Preferences, and the Impact of Suboptimal Disease Control in Rheumatoid Arthritis Patients in Greece: Analysis of the Greek Cohort of SENSE study.Mediterranean journal of rheumatology · 2022Article
- Managing inadequate response to initial anti-TNF therapy in rheumatoid arthritis: optimising treatment outcomes.Therapeutic advances in musculoskeletal disease · 2022Review
- Towards Personalising the Use of Biologics in Rheumatoid Arthritis: A Discrete Choice Experiment.The patient · 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 3 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPreference assessments of patients with rheumatoid arthritis can support clinical therapeutic decisions for including biologic and targeted synthetic medicines to use. This study assesses patient preferences for attributes of second-line therapies and heterogeneity within these preferences to estimate the relative importance of treatment characteristics and to calculate the minimum benefit levels patients require to accept higher levels of side effects.
methodsBetween November 2018 to August 2019, patients with rheumatoid arthritis were recruited to a survey containing demographic and disease-related questions as well as a discrete choice experiment to measure their preferences for second-line therapies using biologics or Janus kinases inhibitors. Treatment characteristics included were route of administration, frequency of use, probability of mild short-term side effects, probability of side effects changing appearance, probability of psychological side effects, probability of severe side effects and effectiveness of treatment.
resultsA total of 358 patients were included in the analysis. A latent class analysis revealed three preference patterns: (1) treatment effectiveness as the single most important attribute, (2) route of administration as the most important attribute, closely followed by frequency of use and psychological side effects and (3) severe side effects as the most important attribute followed by psychological side effects. In addition, disease duration and mild side effects influenced the patients' choices.
conclusionRespondents found either effectiveness, route of administration or severe side effects as the most important attribute. Patients noting effectiveness as most important were more willing than other patients to accept higher risks of side effects.
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.