ArticleArchives of rheumatology2021
Peer-led education or booklet for knowledge transfer about disease: A randomized-controlled trial with ankylosing spondylitis patients.
Article in Archives of rheumatology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Knowledge, attitudes, and practices of inhalation device use among patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Peer Support in Rheumatic Diseases: A Narrative Literature Review.Patient preference and adherence · 2023Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objectives: This study aims to investigate whether peer-led group education + booklet is superior to booklet only to increase ankylosing spondylitis (AS) patients' knowledge about their disease. Patients and methods: A total of 56 patients (46 males, 10 females; mean age 41.9±9.2 years; range, 22 to 58 years) with a definite diagnosis of AS who were under follow-up in our outpatient clinic between August 2010 and January 2012 were included in this study. The patients were randomly allocated to the peer-led education + booklet (education group, n=27) and booklet only (control group, n=29). To assess the level of patients' knowledge, a patient knowledge questionnaire containing four domains was used. Evaluations were made at baseline, four weeks, and six months. The variables were "number of correct choices" (NoCC), "number of correct items" (NoCI) and percent of correct choices for each domain; the later one was resembled by the name of that domain (area A, area B, etc.). Results: The variables that improved in both groups were NoCC, NoCI, and "pharmacotherapy and physical therapy area" (area C). These improvements were similar between the groups (respectively, p=0.915, p=0.830, p=0.791). Conclusion: Reading a booklet alone is as successful as peer-led education + booklet for knowledge transfer about their disease in patients with AS. In this study, the most knowledge gain was achieved in "drug treatment and physical therapy" area.
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.