ArticleRheumatology advances in practice2025
Feasibility of remote measurement in intensive longitudinal data collection for rheumatoid arthritis patients commencing a new treatment.
Article in Rheumatology advances in practice, 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objectives: This article aims to evaluate the feasibility and acceptability of intensive assessment of symptoms in RA patients starting a new biologic treatment. Methods: Participant symptoms and experiences were collected six times a day for 14 days and once a day for 16 days in a single cohort. Wearable devices were also given to participants to track sleep and physical activity. Qualitative interviews were conducted to provide feedback regarding the acceptability of methods. Recruitment and completion rates were used to test for feasibility. The mean and variability of data for each day were calculated to reflect on data quality. Qualitative interview data were analysed by deductive thematic analysis. Results: Of the 110 patients approached, 27 (15.5%) could not be contacted and 12 (14.5%) were excluded due to meeting exclusion criteria. Of 71 contactable and eligible participants, 31 (43.7%) joined the study. The survey completion rate was 74.6% (1943/2604) for the first 14 days, ranging from 10.7 to 100%. Completion rates for days 15-30 ranged from 60 to 83%. Mean levels of severity of symptoms (pain, fatigue, joint stiffness) showed a decrease after treatment, as expected. Qualitative interviews demonstrated that participants reported a positive experience that was not overly burdensome. Surveys were described as quick and easy to complete, but repetitive for some participants. Discussion: Recruitment and completion rates were acceptable and comparable to similar studies in the field. Qualitative analysis showed largely positive reviews from participants with feedback mainly focusing on survey timings.
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.