ArticleZeitschrift fur Rheumatologie2026
[Assessment of the earning capacity of patients with rheumatoid arthritis].
Article in Zeitschrift fur Rheumatologie, 2026. 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The assessment of the earning capacity of patients with rheumatoid arthritis must be uniform, comprehensible, and reproducible. The aim of this monocentric retrospective cross-sectional study was to identify suitable assessments that have predictive value in relation to the prognosis for earning capacity. A total of 283 patients were included. Of these, 43 (15%; cohort 1) had a suspended or severely compromised earning capacity and 240 (84%; cohort 2) had a positive prognosis for their ability to work. The disease activity of cohort 1 was slightly higher than in cohort 2 (Disease Activity Score 28 [DAS28]: 2.4 ± 1.2 vs. 2.3 ± 0.8; p < 0.05, r = 0.11). Highly significant, clinically relevant differences were found in everyday activities (Hannover functional questionnaire [FFbH]: 61 ± 15 vs. 80 ± 14; p < 0.001, r = 0.38) and hand strength (19 ± 11 kg vs. 23 ± 10 kg, p < 0.001, r = 0.29). The 6‑minute walk test showed clear, clinically relevant differences (430 ± 89 m vs. 552 ± 84 m, p < 0.001, r = 0.32), as did the Timed-up-and-go-Test (TUG; 10.4 ± 4.5 s vs. 7.9 ± 3.9 s, p < 0.01, r = 0.35) and in the Chair-rising-Test (CRT; 23 ± 11 s vs. 11 ± 4.6 s; p < 0.001, r = 0.44). The scores for anxiety and depression were only slightly higher in cohort 1 than in cohort 2 (Patient Health Questionnaire 4 [PHQ-4]: 5.0 ± 3.2 vs. 4.0 ± 2.4, p < 0.001, r = 0.27), as were the scores for fatigue (Modified Fatigue Impact Scale [MFIS] psych: 2.9 ± 0.6 vs. 2.1 ± 0.8, p < 0.001, r = 0.34; MFIS cog: 2.3 ± 0.8 vs. 1.6 ± 0.9, p < 0.001, r = 0.25; MFIS psych-soc: 2.9 ± 0.8 vs. 1.8 ± 1, p < 0.001, r = 0.30). The erosion status (according to the Larsen score) did not differ significantly between cohorts 1 and 2. The data obtained indicate that the FFbH, 6‑minute walk test, TUG, CRT, and hand strength are particularly helpful in assessing the occupational prognosis of patients with rheumatoid arthritis.
Indexed as
Identifiers
41410779What 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.