Observational studyRheumatology (Oxford, England)2025
Recruitment rate comparison between a virtual tele-research cohort and a traditional centre-based cohort in idiopathic inflammatory myopathy.
Observational study in Rheumatology (Oxford, England), 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
14 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesIdiopathic inflammatory myopathy (IIM, myositis) faces recruitment and retention challenges in clinical studies due to disease rarity, geographical barriers and logistic difficulties. This study aimed to compare recruitment, enrolment, retention and data completion between a decentralized telemedicine-based research cohort (TRC) and a traditional centre-based cohort (CBC) in IIM.
methodsThe Myositis Patient Centered Research (MyPacer) study, a large prospective observational study, collected data on core set measures, patient-reported outcomes and functional tests. TRC patients were recruited online across the USA using a mobile app/website, while CBC participants were recruited from two myositis centres. Both cohorts followed the same protocol and were observed for 6 months. Recruitment was defined as participants who completed the pre-eligibility questionnaire, while enrolment referred to those who passed screening and participated for 6 months. Recruitment, enrolment and retention rates were compared between the two cohorts.
resultsIn 6 months, TRC recruited 781 patients, 13 times faster than CBC (n = 60), and enrolled twice as many (P < 0.001). Screening success was similar, 78% for TRC and 87% in the CBC (P = 0.17). Among 120 enrolled, DM was the most common diagnosis (52%), with most participants being female (75%) and White (81%), with a mean age of 55 ± 13.4 years, similar across both cohorts. Dropout rates were similar (TRC, 7.6%: CBC, 5.5%; P = 0.67). TRC had higher compliance with study forms (93%) than CBC (69%) (P < 0.01).
conclusionThe decentralized TRC demonstrated higher recruitment and enrolment, with similar compliance and retention rates compared with CBC. Decentralized approaches offer promise for rare diseases with recruitment challenges.
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.