ArticleBMC rheumatology2024
Participation in cardiovascular screening consultations, the who, when and why - A cohort study on patients with rheumatoid arthritis.
Article in BMC rheumatology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Changes in cardiovascular risk factors in patients with inflammatory arthritis following screening consultations-a Danish register-based cohort study.EULAR rheumatology open · 2026Article
- Healthcare providers' awareness and knowledge of recommendations on cardiovascular risk management in people with rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases: a survey study.EULAR rheumatology open · 2026Article
- Patients' experiences of managing lifestyle habits following a rheumatoid arthritis diagnosis.EULAR rheumatology open · 2026Article
- Myocardial infarction in rheumatic diseases.Rheumatology international · 2025Review
- Low adherence to cardiovascular risk assessment guidelines in patients with rheumatoid arthritis: a retrospective chart review of routine clinical practice.Rheumatology international · 2025Review
- Thyroid disease as a comorbidity in inflammatory rheumatic diseases.Rheumatology international · 2025Review
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 at 1 institution in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundIn accordance with the EULAR recommendations, the Danish Hospital for Rheumatic Diseases have systematically invited patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) to cardiovascular (CV) risk assessment since 2011. Patients with high risk are invited to a follow-up screening after one year. To optimize the screening and tailor it to individual needs, information about who accepts vs. declines follow-up is needed. Thus, the aim of this study was to explore participation in systematic CV risk assessment among patients with RA. Furthermore, to explore differences between patients with low vs. high risk, and between patients with high risk who accept vs. decline follow-up.
methodsData from 2,222 outpatients with RA in the period 2011-2021 were retrieved, and of these 1,522 were under 75 years and eligible to be invited. To assess the 10-year risk for CV death, the modified Systematic Coronary Risk Evaluation (mSCORE), derived by multiplying the SCORE by 1.5, was used. Logistic regression analyses were used to explore differences in CV risk factors (triglycerides, HbA1c, lifestyle factors) and measures of disease impact (pain, fatigue, patient global assessment, HAQ, EQ-5D-5L) between patients with low vs. high risk. Differences between high risk patients who accepted vs. declined follow-up were analysed using Wilcoxon rank sum test and chi-squared test for groups.
resultsOne thousand one hundred forty-nine received a CV screening invitation and 91 declined participation. Patients with high risk had significantly longer disease duration (OR; 95 CI) (1.017; 1.002-1.032), higher levels of triglycerides (1.834; 1.475-2.280), HbA1C (1.046; 1.020-1.070), pain (1.006; 1.001-1.012), and HAQ-score (1.305; 1.057-1.612) compared to patients with low risk and they more often declined follow-up (43% vs. 28%, p < 0.001). Those who declined a follow-up invitation were older (p = 0.016) and had shorter disease duration (p = 0.006) compared to those who accepted follow-up.
conclusionA first CV screening consultation was accepted by most patients with RA, while only every other patient with high to very high CV risk adhered to a follow-up screening consultation. Neither measures of disease impact nor lifestyle factors were associated with adherence. Further studies are needed to explore the patients' motivation, barriers and facilitators for adherence or non-adherence to a follow-up consultation.
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.