ArticleArthritis care & research2025
Diverse Treatment Goals in Psoriatic Arthritis: Insights From Participants in the PARC Cohort.
Article in Arthritis care & research, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Longitudinal changes in patient characteristics as drivers of clinical outcomes in the Early Undifferentiated PolyArthritis (EUPA) cohort.Rheumatology (Oxford, England) · 2026Trial
- Quantifying Disease Activity Despite Treatment with Tumor Necrosis Factor Inhibitors Among Patients with Psoriatic Arthritis and Axial Spondyloarthritis: Real-World Results from the PPD CorEvitas Psoriatic Arthritis/Spondyloarthritis Registry.Rheumatology and therapy · 2026Article
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
Abstract
objectiveThe aim of this study was to examine patient-reported treatment goals among individuals with psoriatic arthritis.
methodsParticipants in the Psoriatic Arthritis Research Consortium completed standardized assessments, including patient-reported outcome (PROs) instruments, between 2017 and 2020. Additionally, participants were asked two open-ended questions at enrollment or therapy initiation to identify patients' top improvement priority and their treatment impact goals, respectively: "If you could improve one thing about your disease, what would it be?" and "What would an effective treatment change for you?" We categorized each response into a theme. The themes were matched to constructs measured by PRO items (ie, pain, fatigue, skin, etc). We describe themes and scores from matched PRO items.
resultsAssessments were completed by 193 participants. Decreasing pain (56%) and improving skin (12%) were the most common improvement priorities. Impact goals were more diverse and included decreasing pain (24%), general improvement in life (18%), and the ability to be more active (15%), participate in recreational activities (9%), function at work (11%), and exercise (5%). Of note, responses were often matched to more than one PRO item or instrument. The scores for PRO items that matched the patient's improvement priority or the impact goal were higher than scores for the remainder of the population (ie, fatigue item scores were higher among individuals identifying fatigue as their improvement priority).
conclusionThe heterogeneity of treatment goals underscores the importance of eliciting patient treatment goals to guide personalized management. Specific items within PROs may be helpful in identifying and following patient-specific treatment goals.
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.