Observational studyArthritis research & therapy2021
Implementing an automated monitoring process in a digital, longitudinal observational cohort study.
Observational study in Arthritis research & therapy, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 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
9 citing papers in PubMed, 13 citations in OpenAlex.
- Depressive symptoms are associated with achieving remission in PsA patients - an analysis from the RABBIT-SpA register.BMC rheumatology · 2026Article
- Severe impairments in work ability among patients with axSpA and PsA: results from the RABBIT-SpA Register.RMD open · 2026Article
- Real-world sex differences in treatment persistence and reasons for discontinuation in psoriatic arthritis patients: results from the German RABBIT-SpA register.Arthritis research & therapy · 2025Article
- Which are the clinical characteristics that lead to the decision of primary or secondary usage of TNFi or IL-17i in patients with axial spondyloarthritis?: Real-world evidence from the RABBIT-SpA cohort.EULAR rheumatology open · 2025Article
- Discordance between patient and physician reported global disease activity in PsA is associated with mental health-a cross-sectional analysis.Rheumatology international · 2025Article
- Effect of depressive symptoms on treatment response in patients with axSpA: data from the RABBIT-SpA register.RMD open · 2025Observational
- Article
- Challenges for quality and utilization of real-world data for diffuse large B-cell lymphoma in REALYSA, a LYSA cohort.Blood advances · 2024Article
- Depressive symptoms are associated with fatigue, poorer functional status and less engagement in sports in axSpA and PsA: an analysis from the RABBIT-SpA cohort.Arthritis research & therapy · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors at 5 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundClinical data collection requires correct and complete data sets in order to perform correct statistical analysis and draw valid conclusions. While in randomized clinical trials much effort concentrates on data monitoring, this is rarely the case in observational studies- due to high numbers of cases and often-restricted resources. We have developed a valid and cost-effective monitoring tool, which can substantially contribute to an increased data quality in observational research.
methodsAn automated digital monitoring system for cohort studies developed by the German Rheumatism Research Centre (DRFZ) was tested within the disease register RABBIT-SpA, a longitudinal observational study including patients with axial spondyloarthritis and psoriatic arthritis. Physicians and patients complete electronic case report forms (eCRF) twice a year for up to 10 years. Automatic plausibility checks were implemented to verify all data after entry into the eCRF. To identify conflicts that cannot be found by this approach, all possible conflicts were compiled into a catalog. This "conflict catalog" was used to create queries, which are displayed as part of the eCRF. The proportion of queried eCRFs and responses were analyzed by descriptive methods. For the analysis of responses, the type of conflict was assigned to either a single conflict only (affecting individual items) or a conflict that required the entire eCRF to be queried.
resultsData from 1883 patients was analyzed. A total of n = 3145 eCRFs submitted between baseline (T0) and T3 (12 months) had conflicts (40-64%). Fifty-six to 100% of the queries regarding eCRFs that were completely missing were answered. A mean of 1.4 to 2.4 single conflicts occurred per eCRF, of which 59-69% were answered. The most common missing values were CRP, ESR, Schober's test, data on systemic glucocorticoid therapy, and presence of enthesitis.
conclusionProviding high data quality in large observational cohort studies is a major challenge, which requires careful monitoring. An automated monitoring process was successfully implemented and well accepted by the study centers. Two thirds of the queries were answered with new data. While conventional manual monitoring is resource-intensive and may itself create new sources of errors, automated processes are a convenient way to augment data quality.
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.