ArticleRMD open2022
Nationwide, large-scale implementation of an online system for remote entry of patient-reported outcomes in rheumatology: characteristics of users and non-users and time to first entry.
Article in RMD open, 2022. 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, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- Patients with axial spondyloarthritis reported willingness to use remote care and showed high adherence to electronic patient-reported outcome measures: an 18-month observational study.Rheumatology international · 2024Trial
- Commonalities and differences in set-up and data collection across European spondyloarthritis registries - results from the EuroSpA collaboration.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
20 authors at 9 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
aimsIn May 2020, a nationwide, web-based system for remote entry of patient-reported outcomes (PROs) in inflammatory rheumatic diseases was launched and implemented in routine care (DANBIO-from-home). After 1.5 years of use, we explored clinical characteristics of patients who did versus did not use the system, and the time to first entry of PROs.
methodsAll patients followed in DANBIO were informed about DANBIO-from-home by electronic invitations or when attending their clinic. Characteristics of patients who did/did not use DANBIO-from-home in the period after implementation were explored by multivariable logistic regression analyses including demographic and clinical variables (gender, age group, diagnosis, disease duration, use of biological disease-modifying agent (bDMARD), Health Assessment Questionnaire (HAQ), Patient Acceptable Symptom Scale (PASS)). Time from launch to first entry was presented as cumulative incidence curves by age group (<40/40-60/61-80/>80 years).
resultsOf 33 776 patients, 68% entered PROs using DANBIO-from-home at least once. Median (IQR) time to first entry was 27 (11-152) days. Factors associated with data entry in multivariate analyses (OR (95% CI)) were: female gender (1.19 (1.12 to 1.27)), bDMARD treatment (1.41 (1.33 to 1.50)), age 40-60 years (1.79 (1.63 to 1.97)), 61-80 years (1.87 (1.70 to 2.07), or age >80 years (0.57 (0.50 to 0.65)) (reference: age <40 years), lower HAQ (0.68 (0.65 to 0.71)) and PASS 'no' (1.09 (1.02 to 1.17). Diagnosis was not associated. Time to first entry of PROs was longest in patients <40 years of age (119 (24-184) days) and shortest in the 61-80 years age group (25 (8-139) days).
conclusionA nationwide online platform for PRO in rheumatology achieved widespread use. Higher age, male gender, conventional treatment and disability were associated with no use.
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.