ArticleBMC rheumatology2025
Rheumatic? A diagnostic decision support tool for individuals suspecting rheumatic diseases: Mixed-methods usability and acceptability study.
Article in BMC rheumatology, 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.
- Clinical spectrum and diagnostic outcomes of patients with suspected inflammatory rheumatic disease in the emergency department: a retrospective study.Rheumatology international · 2026Article
- Evidence for Digital Health Tools Designed to Support the Triage of Musculoskeletal Conditions in Primary, Urgent, and Emergency Care Settings: Scoping Review.Journal of medical Internet research · 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
13 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThe early diagnosis of inflammatory rheumatic diseases (IRDs) is of paramount importance in order to prevent irreversible damage to joints and to optimize treatment outcomes. Nevertheless, conventional care pathways frequently entail diagnostic delays spanning several months. Symptom checkers (SCs) have the potential to provide a solution by offering validated symptom assessments, improving triage systems and expediting diagnostic evaluations. The objective of this mixed-methods study is to assess the usability and acceptability of the SC Rheumatic? among individuals with suspected rheumatic diseases.
methodsA total of 105 individuals with suspected IRDs who were newly presenting at an outpatient rheumatology clinic completed the Rheumatic? symptom checker and an evaluation questionnaire. The questionnaire comprised the System Usability Scale (SUS) and Net Promoter Score (NPS). Additionally, 14 participants were interviewed by telephone in order to gain further insights through the qualitative method.
resultsThe Rheumatic? symptom checker received a "good" usability score, with an average SUS of 78 ± 16 (range 0-100). Younger participants reported significantly higher usability scores (p < 0.03). However, the NPS was - 15 (range - 100 to 100), indicating lower acceptability. Qualitative data supported the positive usability ratings but emphasized the need for enhancements to increase user engagement and perceived value, such as a current perceived lack of immediate benefit for many users. Their experience varied in terms of impact, with some patients suggesting an increased awareness of their symptoms while others did not notice any difference.
conclusionRheumatic? demonstrates good usability, particularly among younger users. Interviews revealed valuable suggestions for improvements, which could enhance overall acceptability and user satisfaction. Implementing Rheumatic? could lead to more efficient triage, potentially reducing diagnostic delays and an optimized allocation of resources. Future iterations should prioritize implementation strategies to maximize user impact and benefit. CLINICAL TRIAL NUMBER: Not applicable.
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.