ArticleRheumatology advances in practice2021
Article in Rheumatology advances in practice, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Diabetic foot in the context of rheumatic diseases: pathogenesis and treatment approaches.Rheumatology international · 2025Review
- Article
- Management of foot health in people with inflammatory arthritis: British Society for Rheumatology guideline scope.Rheumatology (Oxford, England) · 2022Article
- Disparities in foot care-is inflammatory arthritis still a poor relation?Rheumatology advances in practice · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
- Comment on
Authors and funding
2 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesRA has an affinity for smaller joints, thus its effect on the foot/ankle is widely known. Despite this, there is lack of adherence to foot management standards by podiatrists. This research aimed to audit the adherence to these standards and compare them with well-established adherence to management standards in the diabetic foot.
methodsIn this clinical audit, data were obtained via six National Health Service (NHS) podiatry departments in North-East London on service provision, management, treatment and professional development on both RA and diabetic foot health via foot management clinical audit tools. Descriptive analyses were conducted and analysed to identify patterns and trends, with set standard compliance conditions calculated on the Net Promotor Score (NPS) metric to allow for multi-comparison.
resultsAll areas of RA foot health management were found to have poor compliance when compared with diabetes foot health management. When using NPS, no trust audited met the majority of foot health standards in RA, with only two having a positive score (meeting the minimum standards), compared with all trusts posting a positive NPS on diabetes foot health standards.
conclusionOur results indicate that poor compliance to RA foot health standards is prevalent across the audited region and might be resulting in worsening foot outcomes despite a paradigm shift in other areas of RA management. Enhanced training and knowledge are required for better adherence to the standards set out and to improve foot health management in RA.
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.