ArticleRheumatology international2025
Patients with antiphospholipid antibodies preferentially seek health information from physicians: a cross-sectional online patient quantitative survey.
Article in Rheumatology international, 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.
- Patient opinion in rheumatology matters.Rheumatology international · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Little is known about how patients with antiphospholipid syndrome (APS) or antiphospholipid antibodies (aPL) access and trust health information. This research aimed to: describe the sources of information most frequently accessed/trusted by patients with APS/aPL; identify if individuals with APS/aPL perceived their health had been negatively impacted by various sources and document obstacles to accessing health information. Patients meeting Revised Sapporo Criteria for APS or with ≥1 positive aPL on ≥2 occasions were recruited to an online survey regarding their health information use at diagnosis and within 6 months preceding survey completion. McNemar tests were used to compare percentages accessing and trusting each source at diagnosis/currently. 69 patients completed the survey; 88.4% were female, mean age was 47.4 years (SD 15.1). The sources most frequently accessed at diagnosis and currently were rheumatologists/lupus specialists, hematologists, and family physicians, yet patients accessed family physicians (47.8% vs. 31.9%, difference -15.9%, 95% CI - 29.2%, -2.7%) and hematologists (47.8% vs. 31.9%, difference -15.9%, 95% CI -31.1%, -0.8%) less frequently from diagnosis to currently. The most trusted sources at diagnosis and currently were rheumatologists/lupus specialists (82.6% vs. 92.8%) and family physicians (66.7% vs. 68.1%). Few respondents reported negative impacts from advocacy organizations (4.4%), websites (5.8%) and social media (4.4%). 20.3% reported challenges communicating with healthcare providers. Patients with aPL/APS preferentially seek health information from and trust their physicians. However, 20.3% of patients felt communication with healthcare providers was an obstacle to accessing information. There is a need for enhanced patient-physician communication.
Indexed as
Identifiers
39853441What 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.