Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36174077›Full record

ArticlePloS one2022

Comparison of rheumatoid arthritis composite disease activity indices and residual activity in a Brazilian multicenter study- REAL study.

Isabela Araújo Santos, Renê Donizeti Ribeiro de Oliveira, Sergio Couto Luna Almeida, Ana Beatriz Vargas-Santos, Rodrigo Balbino Chaves Amorim, Ana Paula Monteiro Gomides, Cleandro Pires de Albuquerque, Manoel Barros Bertolo, Maria Fernanda Brandão Resende Guimarães, Maria Raquel da Costa Pinto and 15 more

Open access · goldAbstract readMulticenter Study
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
0.5field-weighted citation impact, top 33% 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

3 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
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

25 authors at 13 institutions in 1 country.

Isabela Araújo SantosUniversidade de São Paulo, Ribeirão Preto, Brazil.ORCID 0000-0003-3474-1336
Renê Donizeti Ribeiro de OliveiraUniversidade de São Paulo, Ribeirão Preto, Brazil.
Sergio Couto Luna AlmeidaUniversidade de São Paulo, Ribeirão Preto, Brazil.
Ana Beatriz Vargas-SantosUniversidade do Estado do Rio de Janeiro, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil.
Rodrigo Balbino Chaves AmorimUniversidade do Estado do Rio de Janeiro, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil.
Ana Paula Monteiro GomidesUniversidade de Brasılia, Brasılia, Brazil.
Cleandro Pires de AlbuquerqueUniversidade de Brasılia, Brasılia, Brazil.
Manoel Barros BertoloUniversidade Estadual de Campinas, Campinas, Brazil.
Maria Fernanda Brandão Resende GuimarãesUniversidade Federal de Minas Gerais, Belo Horizonte, Brazil.ORCID 0000-0003-3865-3739
Maria Raquel da Costa PintoUniversidade Federal de Minas Gerais, Belo Horizonte, Brazil.ORCID 0000-0001-7093-830X
Gustavo Gomes ResendeUniversidade Federal de Minas Gerais, Belo Horizonte, Brazil.
Rina Dalva Neubarth GiorgiHospital do Servidor Publico Estadual de São Paulo, São Paulo, Brazil.
Nathalia de Carvalho SacilotoHospital do Servidor Publico Estadual de São Paulo, São Paulo, Brazil.
Sebastião Cezar RadominskiUniversidade Federal do Paraná, Curitiba, Brazil.
Fernanda Maria BorghiUniversidade Estadual de Maringá, Maringá, Brazil.
Karina Rossi BonfiglioliUniversidade de São Paulo, São Paulo, Brazil.
Henrique Carrico da SilvaUniversidade de São Paulo, São Paulo, Brazil.
Maria de Fatima L da Cunha SaumaUniversidade Federal do Para, Belém, Brazil.
Ivanio Alves PereiraUniversidade Federal de Santa Catarina, Florianópolis, Brazil.
Glaucio Ricardo Werner de CastroUniversidade do Sul de Santa Catarina-Unisul, Florianópolis, Brazil.
Claiton Viegas BrenolUniversidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul, Porto Alegre, Brazil.
Ricardo Machado XavierUniversidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul, Porto Alegre, Brazil.
Licia Maria Henrique MotaUniversidade de Brasılia, Brasılia, Brazil.
Paulo Louzada-JuniorUniversidade de São Paulo, Ribeirão Preto, Brazil.
Geraldo da Rocha Castelar-PinheiroUniversidade do Estado do Rio de Janeiro, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil.
Universidade de Ribeirão Preto · BRUniversidade de Brasília · BRUniversidade do Estado do Rio de Janeiro · BRUniversidade Federal de Minas Gerais · BRHospital do Servidor Público Estadual · BRUniversidade de São Paulo · BRUniversidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul · BRUniversidade do Sul de Santa Catarina · BRUniversidade Estadual de Campinas (UNICAMP) · BRUniversidade Estadual de Maringá · BRUniversidade Federal de Santa Catarina · BRUniversidade Federal do Pará · BRUniversidade Federal do Paraná · BR

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionRheumatoid arthritis (RA) composite disease activity indices have become handy tools in daily clinical practice and crucial in defining remission or low disease activity, the main target of the RA treatment. However, there is no definition of the best index to assess disease activity in clinical practice.

objectivesTo compare the residual activity among the indices with the ACR/EULAR remission criteria (Boolean method) to identify the most feasible for assessing remission in daily practice, also considering correlation and concordance, sensibility, and specificity. PATIENTS AND

methodsWe selected 1116 patients with established RA from the real-life rheumatoid arthritis study database-REAL. The composite disease activity indices-DAS28-ESR, DAS28-CRP, SDAI, and CDAI-and their components were compared to the Boolean method to identify residual activity using binomial regression. The indices were analyzed for correlation and agreement using the Spearman index and weighted kappa. The chi-square test evaluated sensibility and specificity for remission based on the Boolean method.

resultsDAS28-CRP overestimated remission and confirmed higher residual activity than SDAI and CDAI. The indices showed good correlation and agreement, with a better relationship between SDAI and CDAI (k:0,88). CDAI and SDAI showed higher sensitivity and specificity for remission based on the Boolean method. CDAI was performed in 99% of patients, while DAS28 and SDAI were completed in approximately 85%.

conclusionsAlthough all composite indices of activity can be used in clinical practice and showed good agreement, CDAI and SDAI have better performance in evaluating remission based on the Boolean method, showing less residual activity and higher sensibility and specificity. In addition, CDAI seems to be more feasible for disease activity evaluation in daily clinical practice, especially in developing countries.

Indexed as

Arthritis, RheumatoidBrazilDatabases, FactualDisease ProgressionHumans

Identifiers

PMID36174077
PMCPMC9521837
OpenAlexW4297984168

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.