Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35193653›Full record

SynthesisArthritis research & therapy2022

Systematic review of quantitative preference studies of treatments for rheumatoid arthritis among patients and at-risk populations.

Gwenda Simons, Joshua Caplan, Rachael L DiSantostefano, Jorien Veldwijk, Matthias Englbrecht, Karin Schölin Bywall, Ulrik Kihlbom, Karim Raza, Marie Falahee

Open access · goldAbstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Arthritis research & therapy, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
13citing papers in PubMed
4.3field-weighted citation impact, top 5% 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

13 citing papers in PubMed, 25 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Can the General Public Be a Proxy for an "At-Risk" Group in a Patient Preference Study? A Disease Prevention Example in Rheumatoid Arthritis.Medical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making · 2024
    Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
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

9 authors at 4 institutions in 4 countries.

Gwenda Simons *Rheumatology Research Group, Institute of Inflammation and Ageing, University of Birmingham Research Laboratories, Queen Elizabeth Hospital, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, B15 2WB, UK. g.simons@bham.ac.uk.ORCID 0000-0003-2596-9101
Joshua Caplan *Rheumatology Research Group, Institute of Inflammation and Ageing, University of Birmingham Research Laboratories, Queen Elizabeth Hospital, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, B15 2WB, UK.
Rachael L DiSantostefanoJanssen Pharmaceuticals, Titusville, NJ, USA.
Jorien VeldwijkSchool of Health Policy & Management, Erasmus University Rotterdam, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
Matthias EnglbrechtFreelance Data Scientist, Eckental, Germany.
Karin Schölin BywallCentre for Research Ethics and Bioethics, Department of Public Health and Caring Sciences, Uppsala University, Uppsala, Sweden.
Ulrik KihlbomCentre for Research Ethics and Bioethics, Department of Public Health and Caring Sciences, Uppsala University, Uppsala, Sweden.
Karim RazaRheumatology Research Group, Institute of Inflammation and Ageing, University of Birmingham Research Laboratories, Queen Elizabeth Hospital, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, B15 2WB, UK.
Marie FalaheeRheumatology Research Group, Institute of Inflammation and Ageing, University of Birmingham Research Laboratories, Queen Elizabeth Hospital, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, B15 2WB, UK.
Queen Elizabeth Hospital Birmingham · GBUppsala University · SEJanssen (United States) · USUniversity Medical Center Utrecht · NL

Funding

Medical Research Council MR/P021220/1
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Treatments used for rheumatoid arthritis (RA) are under investigation for their efficacy to prevent RA in at risk groups. It is therefore important to understand treatment preferences of those at risk. We systematically reviewed quantitative preference studies of drugs to treat, or prevent RA, to inform the design of further studies and trials of RA prevention. Stated preference studies for RA treatment or prevention were identified through a search of five databases. Study characteristics and results were extracted, and the relative importance of different types of treatment attributes was compared across populations. Twenty three studies were included 20 of RA treatments (18 of patients; 2 of the general public) and 3 prevention studies with first-degree relatives (FDRs). Benefits, risks, administration method and cost (when included) were important determinants of treatment choice. A benefit was more important than a risk attribute in half of the studies of RA treatment that included a benefit attribute and 2/3 studies of RA prevention. There was variability in the relative importance of attributes across the few prevention studies. In studies with non-patient participants, attributes describing confidence in treatment effectiveness/safety were more important determinants of choice than in studies with patients. Most preference studies relating to RA are of treatments for established RA. Few studies examine preferences for treatments to prevent RA. Given intense research focus on RA prevention, additional preference studies in this context are needed. Variation in treatment preferences across different populations is not well understood and direct comparisons are needed.

Indexed as

Antirheumatic AgentsArthritis, RheumatoidHumansPatient PreferenceRisk FactorsTreatment OutcomeAntirheumatic AgentsAttributesPreventive treatmentRheumatoid arthritisSystematic reviewTreatment preferences

Identifiers

PMID35193653
PMCPMC8862509
OpenAlexW4220864494

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.