ArticleCHEST pulmonary2025
Pragmatic Comparative Effectiveness Trials in Rheumatoid Arthritis-Associated Interstitial Lung Disease: A Multiperspective Qualitative Study.
Article in CHEST pulmonary, 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.
- Article
- Precision medicine in rheumatoid arthritis-associated interstitial lung disease: current evidence and future directions.Current opinion in pulmonary medicine · 2025Review
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
backgroundRheumatoid arthritis-associated interstitial lung disease (RA-ILD) portends a devastating prognosis for patients, with survival typically being < 5 to 8 years after diagnosis. Limited clinical trial data exist to guide treatment strategies, and the efficacy of current strategies-immunomodulation and antifibrotics-remains uncertain. Large randomized controlled trials are costly, but pragmatic trial designs could reduce expenses. Establishing equipoise and assessing feasibility from both patient and expert perspectives are essential for developing these trials. RESEARCH QUESTION: What are the perceptions of RA-ILD experts and patients with interstitial lung disease surrounding equipoise, feasibility, and trial design? STUDY DESIGN AND
methodsA qualitative study involving a panel of 10 RA-ILD experts and 3 patient panels was conducted. Experts were recruited via snowball sampling, and patient panels included 29 individuals with interstitial lung disease or their caregivers. Discussions were transcribed and analyzed using inductive coding, creating a thematic network based on the Attride-Stirling guidelines.
resultsExpert themes included variability in treatment strategies, prioritizing patient-reported outcomes and balancing pragmatism with data collection in trial design. Patient themes highlighted outcomes of importance, participation barriers, and the need for patient-centered research.
interpretationBoth expert and patient panels endorsed using real-world clinical outcomes and patient-reported outcomes as primary trial end points. Pragmatic trials could reduce costs and expand inclusion criteria, highlighting the potential of patient-centered approaches in RA-ILD research.
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.