ArticleRMD open2023
Population-based user-perceived experience of
Article in RMD open, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- Evidence for Digital Health Tools Designed to Support the Triage of Musculoskeletal Conditions in Primary, Urgent, and Emergency Care Settings: Scoping Review.Journal of medical Internet research · 2026Article
- Attrition and representativeness in development and validation of online symptom checkers-a case study on theFrontiers in artificial intelligence · 2026Article
- Rheumatic? A diagnostic decision support tool for individuals suspecting rheumatic diseases: Mixed-methods usability and acceptability study.BMC rheumatology · 2025Article
- The journey of patients with musculoskeletal complaints in Europe: a cross-sectional European survey.Rheumatology international · 2025Article
- Digital Health for Equitable Rheumatic Care: Integrating Real-World Experiences to Guide Policy Pathways.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
- Let's ask the patient: disease prediction based on patients' symptom descriptions in free text.Rheumatology advances in practice · 2025Article
- Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 2 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveDigital symptom-checkers (SCs) have potential to improve rheumatology triage and reduce diagnostic delays. In addition to being accurate, SCs should be user friendly and meet patient's needs. Here, we examined usability and acceptance of
methodsStudy participants were recruited from an ongoing prospective study, and included people ≥18 years with musculoskeletal complaints completing
resultsA total of 12 712 people completed the user experience survey. The study population had a normal age distribution, with a peak at 50-59 years, and 78% women. A majority found
conclusionBased on real-world data from the largest user evaluation study of a digital SC in rheumatology, we conclude that
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.