ArticleThe British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners2025
Identifying people at risk of rheumatoid arthritis in primary care: a qualitative study.
Article in The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Article
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundIdentification of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) in primary care is challenging and often delayed. Anticyclic citrullinated peptide (anti-CCP) antibody testing of people presenting to primary care with new-onset musculoskeletal symptoms without synovitis could help address this; those testing positive are at increased risk of developing RA.
aimTo explore how primary care clinicians currently identify and refer patients with suspected RA, and the behaviours required to implement a prediction model for guiding targeted anti-CCP testing for non-specific musculoskeletal symptoms in primary care. DESIGN AND
settingA qualitative descriptive study in primary care in England.
methodEight GPs and eight musculoskeletal First Contact Practitioners (physiotherapists) participated in semi-structured interviews to explore their experiences of identifying and/or referring patients with suspected RA, and their views of a implementation package for the anti-CCP prediction model. Data were analysed using framework analysis.
resultsVariations in practice were evident across the pathway for identifying and/or referring patients with suspected RA, including in access to and use of the anti-CCP test. Implementing the anti-CCP prediction model would require clinicians to believe its benefits outweigh its risks, engagement of primary and secondary care teams, and incorporation of the prediction model within an easily accessible and useable clinical-decision support system. Participants' views about implementing the anti-CCP prediction model varied but were mostly positive overall.
conclusionImplementing a prediction model to guide targeted anti-CCP testing in primary care could be feasible. Further research is required to explore the potential benefits, risks, and costs of a pathway for identifying and/or managing people at risk of RA.
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.