Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33542048›Full record

SynthesisRMD open2021

Methodological aspects of design, analysis and reporting of studies with work participation as an outcome domain in patients with inflammatory arthritis: results of two systematic literature reviews informing EULAR points to consider.

Mary Lucy Marques, Alessia Alunno, Annelies Boonen, Marieke M Ter Wee, Louise Falzon, Sofia Ramiro, Polina Putrik

Open access · goldAbstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in RMD open, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
3.2field-weighted citation impact, top 8% of its field
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

6 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 12 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Observational
  5. Observational
  6. Article
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

7 authors at 5 institutions in 4 countries.

Mary Lucy Marques *Rheumatology, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, Zuid-Holland, The Netherlands mary.lucy.marques@gmail.com.ORCID 0000-0002-3071-9425
Alessia Alunno *Rheumatology Unit, University of Perugia Department of Medicine, Perugia, Umbria, Italy.ORCID 0000-0003-1105-5640
Annelies BoonenDepartment of Internal Medicine, Maastricht University Medical Centre, Maastricht, Limburg, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0003-0682-9533
Marieke M Ter WeeDepartment of Epidemiology and Data Science, Amsterdam Public Health, Amsterdam UMC, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Louise FalzonCenter for Personalized Health, Feinstein Institutes for Medical Research, Northwell Health, New York, New York, USA.
Sofia Ramiro *Rheumatology, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, Zuid-Holland, The Netherlands.
Polina Putrik *Department of Internal Medicine, Maastricht University Medical Centre, Maastricht, Limburg, The Netherlands.
Leiden University Medical Center · NLMaastricht University Medical Centre · NLAmsterdam University Medical Centers · NLNorthwell Health · USUniversity of Perugia · IT

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveTo summarise the methodological aspects in studies with work participation (WP) as outcome domain in inflammatory arthritis (IA) and other chronic diseases.

methodsTwo systematic literature reviews (SLRs) were conducted in key electronic databases (2014-2019): search 1 focused on longitudinal prospective studies in IA and search 2 on SLRs in other chronic diseases. Two reviewers independently identified eligible studies and extracted data covering pre-defined methodological areas.

resultsIn total, 58 studies in IA (22 randomised controlled trials, 36 longitudinal observational studies) and 24 SLRs in other chronic diseases were included. WP was the primary outcome in 26/58 (45%) studies. The methodological aspects least accounted for in IA studies were as follows (proportions of studies positively adhering to the topic are shown): aligning the studied population (16/58 (28%)) and sample size calculation (8/58 (14%)) with the work-related study objective; attribution of WP to overall health (28/58 (48%)); accounting for skewness of presenteeism/sick leave (10/52 (19%)); accounting for work-related contextual factors (25/58 (43%)); reporting attrition and its reasons (1/58 (2%)); reporting both aggregated results and proportions of individuals reaching predefined meaningful change or state (11/58 (16%)). SLRs in other chronic diseases confirmed heterogeneity and methodological flaws identified in IA studies without identifying new issues.

conclusionHigh methodological heterogeneity was observed in studies with WP as outcome domain. Consensus around various methodological aspects specific to WP studies is needed to improve quality of future studies. This review informs the EULAR Points to Consider for conducting and reporting studies with WP as an outcome in IA.

Indexed as

ArthritisChronic DiseaseHumansProspective Studiesankylosingarthritishealth careoutcome assessmentpsoriaticrheumatoidspondylitis

Identifiers

PMID33542048
PMCPMC7868290
OpenAlexW3129019453

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.