ArticleBMC rheumatology2025
Sjögren's Hands-On Practice Exchange (SHAPE): a qualitative, expert opinion project in Sjögren's disease clinical practice.
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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundSjögren’s disease (SjD) is a multifaceted, systemic autoimmune disease with substantial clinical heterogeneity. The objective of this study was to conduct a qualitative expert opinion exercise to explore how SjD is assessed, evaluated and managed in international clinical practice.
methodsA qualitative research design was used to elicit the expert opinion of 8 clinicians. Two researchers interviewed each clinician individually. The results of the interviews were synthesised using thematic analysis, and draft definitions of key terms were prepared. A group workshop was held to discuss/validate the interview results and refine the working definitions.
resultsThe clinicians had extensive experience in managing SjD from different countries. Seven topics emerged as major themes: disease classification, disease activity, relevant subpopulations, disease severity, disease progression, disease remission, and unmet needs. For 4 of these topics, there was no consensus – particularly regarding definitions that could be used in a clinical setting. The terms “systemic involvement” and “extra-glandular symptoms” have similar meanings but lack consistent application between clinicians. There was a lack of consensus on what “severity” refers to – whether it is severity of disease damage, the nature of disease manifestations, the potential for irreversible damage, or level of symptoms. There were also conflicting opinions regarding whether patient perspectives should be incorporated in key definitions.
conclusionThere is currently a lack of standard definitions specifically for daily practice, which may contribute to high variability in clinical assessment and management. The definitions proposed in this study represent initial working concepts and are intended as a first step to promote further discussion among SjD experts to facilitate a more unified routine evaluation of patients. 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.