ReviewCurrent rheumatology reports2024
Paediatric Rheumatology Fails to Meet Current Benchmarks, a Call for Health Equity for Children Living with Juvenile Idiopathic Arthritis, Using Digital Health Technologies.
Review in Current rheumatology reports, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Digital home monitoring in patients with juvenile idiopathic arthritis to increase intervals of hospital visits.Rheumatology (Oxford, England) · 2026Article
- Paediatric Preparedness: Document Analysis of the Challenges Experienced Using Smartwatch Technologies to Support Children Living with a Chronic Health Condition.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2025Article
- Development and Delivery of an Integrated Digital Health Care Approach for Children With Juvenile Idiopathic Arthritis: Usability Study.JMIR pediatrics and parenting · 2024Article
- The inequity of global healthcare in pediatric rheumatology.Best practice & research. Clinical rheumatology · 2024Review
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purpose of reviewThis critical review begins by presenting the history of Juvenile Idiopathic Arthritis (JIA) management. To move the conversation forward in addressing the current shortcomings that exist in the clinical management of children living with JIA, we argue that to date, the advancement of successful treatments for JIA has been historically slow. Factors implicated in this situation include a lack of rigorous research, JIA being considered a rare disease, and JIA's idiopathic and complex pathophysiology. RECENT
findingsDespite the well-intended legislative changes to increase paediatric research, and the major advancements seen in molecular medicine over the last 30 years, globally, paediatric rheumatology services are still failing to meet the current benchmarks of best practice. Provoking questions on how the longstanding health care disparities of poor access and delayed treatment for children living with JIA can be improved, to improve healthcare outcomes. Globally, paediatric rheumatology services are failing to meet the current benchmarks of best practice. Raising awareness of the barriers hindering JIA management is the first step in reducing the current health inequalities experienced by children living with JIA. Action must be taken now, to train and well-equip the paediatric rheumatology interdisciplinary workforce. We propose, a resource-efficient way to improve the quality of care provided could be achieved by embedding digital health into clinical practice, to create an integrative care model between the children, general practice and the paediatric rheumatology team. To improve fragmented service delivery and the coordination of interdisciplinary care, across the healthcare system.
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.