ArticleArthritis care & research2023
Examining Rehabilitation Dose in Adults With Rheumatoid Arthritis: Association With Baseline Factors and Change in Clinical Outcomes.
Article in Arthritis care & research, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
Abstract
objectiveTo evaluate the association of baseline factors with rehabilitation dose and the association of rehabilitation dose with meaningful change in physical function, pain, and fatigue over 6 months among adults with rheumatoid arthritis (RA).
methodsUsing data from the National Databank for Rheumatic Diseases registry, we extracted baseline characteristics and self-reported physical function (Health Assessment Questionnaire), pain (visual analog scale [VAS]), fatigue (VAS), rehabilitation dose (low: 1-2 visits, medium: 3-8 visits, high: >8 visits), and follow-up outcomes 6 months later. Changes in clinical outcomes were categorized as improved, no change, or worsened. We calculated odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (95% CIs) using proportional odds logistic regression models to examine the association of the baseline factors with rehabilitation dose and the association of rehabilitation dose with changes in clinical outcomes, adjusting for potential confounders.
resultsThe sample included 1,381 adults with a new episode of rehabilitation (dose: low 27%, medium 42%, high 31%). Worse baseline physical function (adjusted OR 1.29 [95% CI 1.04-1.60]), but not pain (adjusted OR 1.04 [95% CI 0.99-1.10]) or fatigue (adjusted OR 0.98 [95% CI 0.93-1.03]), were associated with a higher rehabilitation dose. A high rehabilitation dose was associated with a favorable change in physical function (OR 1.51 [95% CI 1.14-1.98]), pain (OR 1.44 [95% CI 1.06-1.96]), and fatigue (OR 1.45 [95% CI 1.06-1.99]) compared to a low dose; only the association with physical function change persisted in adjusted models (adjusted OR 1.41 [95% CI 1.03-1.92]).
conclusionUsing real-world data, this study supports a higher rehabilitation dose to improve physical function in adults with 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.