ArticleBMC rheumatology2025
Mapping the future: identifying research priorities in rheumatoid arthritis with the James Lind Alliance approach.
Article in BMC rheumatology, 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
10 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundConsiderable knowledge gaps remain regarding the cause, prevention, and management of rheumatoid arthritis (RA), with limited systematic effort to establish research priorities that truly align with the preferences of those impacted by RA.
objectivesTo identify and prioritize unanswered questions about RA, capturing insights from people living with RA and healthcare professionals involved it its management.
methodsA James Lind Alliance (JLA) Priority Setting Partnership was established and followed six steps: (1) form a steering group, (2) define scope, (3) collect evidence uncertainties using focus groups, (4) collate evidence uncertainties and verify by checking existing research, (5) shortlist evidence uncertainties in an online survey, and (6) identify the top 10 research priorities through a priority-setting workshop.
resultsA total of 212 questions were generated from three focus group interviews and distilled into 36 questions for a survey distributed to people with RA and healthcare professionals. Among 554 responses (mean age 58 [SD 13] years; 481 [87%] women), 449 (81%) identified as people with RA, and 105 (19%) as healthcare professionals, with some reporting dual roles. The ranking process resulted in a shortlist of 26 questions, which were further narrowed down to the top 10 research priorities. The top 10 research priorities addressed strategies for RA prevention, rapid diagnosis, identifying effective treatments, reducing treatment side effects, and holistic management approaches.
conclusionAdopting the JLA method, this study mapped out core research priorities in RA, offering valuable insights that can help researchers, policymakers, and funders align future RA research with patient and clinical needs. 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.