SynthesisRMD open2025
Instruments for measuring fatigue in people with rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases: a systematic review of measurement properties.
Synthesis in RMD open, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Chronic pain and fatigue in multiple osteochondroma and Ollier disease, a systematic review.BMC musculoskeletal disorders · 2026Pooled it
- Sacral nerve stimulation modulates disease activity and autonomic function in active rheumatoid arthritis: a randomized pilot study.Clinical rheumatology · 2026Trial
- Eating during immunotherapy sessions: a cross-sectional study of meal quality in patients with rheumatic diseases undergoing intravenous therapy with immunomodulators.Clinical rheumatology · 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
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo summarise the measurement properties of instruments used to assess fatigue in people with rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases (RMDs).
methodsA systematic review (SR) of measurement properties was conducted in children, adolescents/young adults and adults with RMDs, following Joanna Briggs Institute and COSMIN (COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments) guidelines. Searches were performed in Medline, Embase, CINAHL and Cochrane Library. Risk of bias assessment, data extraction and synthesis were conducted independently by two reviewers. Instruments were assessed according to Outcome Measures in Rheumatology (OMERACT) criteria.
resultsOut of 16 657 records, 109 articles underwent full-text review, and 60 met inclusion criteria. These studies evaluated the psychometric properties of 27 instruments. Most studies focused on construct validity (54/60, 90%) and intermethod reliability (45/60, 75%), with an overall low risk of bias. In contrast, test-retest reliability (13/60, 21.7%) and responsiveness (14/60, 23.3%) were less frequently assessed, but also with an overall low risk of bias. Evidence regarding clinical trial discrimination and thresholds of meaningful change was limited or absent, indicating the need for further research in these domains. Only five instruments-the Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy (FACIT) Fatigue, the 36-Item Short Form Survey Instrument (SF-36) Vitality, the Bristol Rheumatoid Arthritis Fatigue Multi-Dimensional Questionnaire (BRAF-MDQ), the BRAF Numerical Rating Scales (BRAF-NRS) and the Fatigue Severity Scale (FSS)-were rated as valid, reliable and low risk of bias, fulfilling OMERACT endorsement criteria.
conclusionsThis SR comprehensively supports the use of several well-validated instruments to assess fatigue, particularly FACIT-Fatigue, SF-36 Vitality, BRAF-MDQ, BRAF-NRS and FSS, in both clinical and research settings. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42024507112.
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.