ArticleRMD open2025
Reference intervals of work ability and productivity loss and their use in patients with inflammatory rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases.
Article in RMD open, 2025. 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.
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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo establish reference intervals (RIs) for work ability, at-work productivity loss and overall productivity loss in the general working population and to compare work ability and at-work productivity loss of patients with inflammatory rheumatic and musculoskeletal disease (iRMD) with this population.
methodsCross-sectional analysis among patients with iRMDs and population controls without iRMDs having paid work and participating in a Dutch cohort study. They reported on three work outcomes: work ability (0-10), at-work productivity loss and overall productivity loss (0%-100%). A generalised additive model for location, shape and scale parameters was used to establish age-specific RIs and percentile curves for controls. The proportion of patients and controls below each percentile curve was compared.
results413 controls were included; 73% female, with mean age 53 (SD 10) years, 60% had high education, mean work ability was 8.7 (1.6), at-work productivity loss 6.3% (7.2) and overall work productivity loss 11% (25.6).Percentile curves illustrated that work ability and at-work/overall work productivity loss were worse with increasing age. For instance, for work ability, the 95% RI for 22 to 29-year individuals was 5.9-10, while for individuals between 50 and 59 years, it was 4.9-9.1. Patients compared with controls had worse work outcomes, especially for at-work and overall productivity loss.
conclusionWork ability and productivity are not perfect in the general population, based on the newly developed RIs for the three work outcomes. This calls for caution to not overestimate the iRMD impact on work outcomes. Nevertheless, iRMD patients have worse work ability and higher work productivity loss, compared with controls.
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.