ArticleClinical rheumatology2023
Development of outcome measures for giant cell arteritis for use in clinical trials and standard practice.
Article in Clinical rheumatology, 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, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
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
12 authors at 8 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundDevelopments in outcome measures in the rheumatic diseases are promoted by the development of successful treatments. Giant cell arteritis (GCA) is a multifaceted disorder and, therefore, measurement of multiple outcomes is relevant to this illness. It is a privilege to analyze and monitor/transfer long-term patients' management outcomes particularly if the same outcomes are used in practice and in trials.
objectiveTo classify the outcome measures for GCA with a discriminative ability to identify the disease activity status and response to therapy.
methodsThis study was composed of two steps, instrument design (item generation) and judgmental evidence. A panel of 13 experts was used to validate the instrument through quantitative (content validity) and qualitative (cognitive interviewing) methods. Content validity index was used to assess content validity quantitatively.
resultsFive items achieved high content validity where item-content validity index score was >0.79, and in the meantime achieved high content validity response score reflecting greater agreement among panel members. Through qualitative methods, items were improved until saturation was achieved. This agreed with the expert panel ranking of the items included in GCA disease outcome measures set.
conclusionFor daily clinical practice, outcome measures should reflect the patients' disease activity status and have to be easily assessed and recorded. The study identified composite outcome measures for GCA able to assess the disease state and monitor response to therapy. Key Points • Despite the cohort studies published in giant cell arteritis (GCA), there are no fully validated outcome measures for use in standard practice or clinical trials. • There is a gap in international standards for assessing GCA disease activity. • Identifying disease specific outcome measures is vital for monitoring response to therapy, treatment case series and therapeutic clinical trials in GCA. • This study was carried out aiming to classify the outcome measures for GCA with a discriminative ability to identify the disease activity status and response to therapy.
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.