ArticleACR open rheumatology2025
RheuMetric Physician 0 to 10 Estimates of Inflammation, Damage, and Patient Distress at Initial Versus Follow-Up Visits in Contemporary Rheumatology Care.
Article in ACR open rheumatology, 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.
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
objectiveWe aimed to analyze the RheuMetric physician 0 to 10 visual numeric subscale (VNS) estimates of inflammatory activity (DOCINF), organ damage (DOCDAM), and patient distress (DOCDIS) at initial and follow-up routine rheumatology visits for possible incremental information to clarify physician estimate of global assessment (DOCGL).
methodsA retrospective cross-sectional study compared mean DOCGL, DOCINF, DOCDAM, and DOCDIS and the percentage contributed by inflammation, damage, and distress to DOCGL (total = 100%) at initial and follow-up visits in 563 unselected routine care patients, classified into four diagnosis categories: inflammatory (rheumatoid arthritis, systemic lupus erythematosus [SLE], spondylarthritis, vasculitis, and gout), primary osteoarthritis (OA), primary fibromyalgia (FM), and "other" diagnoses. Differences between initial and follow-up visits were estimated using t-tests.
resultsIn all patients, mean DOCGL was 4.0/10, DOCINF 1.6/10, DOCDAM 2.9/10, and DOCDIS 2.4/10, indicating higher estimates for damage and distress than for inflammation, including in all inflammatory diagnoses other than SLE. Highest mean estimates were 2.2 for DOCINF in inflammatory diagnoses, 4.9 for DOCDAM in primary OA, 6.3 for DOCDIS in primary FM. However, DOCDAM was 2.8 (0.6 uniyts higher than DOCINF) in inflammatory diagnoses. RheuMetric estimates of inflammation were significantly higher at initial than at follow-up visits, and estimates of damage were significantly lower at initial than at follow-up visits in all patients and in those with inflammatory diagnoses. DOCGL did not differ significantly at initial versus follow-up visits.
conclusionDOCINF, DOCDAM, and DOCDIS add feasibly recorded, clinically relevant incremental information to DOCGL. Despite excellent contemporary control of inflammation, joint damage and patient distress remain important clinical problems in contemporary routine rheumatology care, documented by quantitative RheuMetric estimates.
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.