ArticleTrials2026
Exploring the optimal follow-up for systemic sclerosis patients: study protocol for a Dutch multicenter randomized controlled trial.
Article in Trials, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT05103553 (Value Based Health Care in Systemic Sclerosis), which is not on this 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.
Value Based Health Care in Systemic Sclerosis: What is the Optimal Follow-up for Patients With Systemic Sclerosis?
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
14 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundCurrently, evidence-based guidelines for the frequency and intensity of follow-up of systemic sclerosis (SSc) patients are not available. Based on expert opinion, an annual extensive evaluation is recommended. A multidisciplinary Care Pathway that integrates this annual extensive evaluation at the Leiden University Medical Center has shown increased patient satisfaction, decreased healthcare utilization, and improved outcomes in SSc patients (1, 2). However, for a subgroup of SSc patients with relatively mild disease, this annual extensive evaluation might be redundant. Therefore, this study aims to evaluate whether assessment in a regular outpatient clinic setting is an acceptable alternative to extensive annual evaluation in the Care Pathway in SSc patients with a low risk of disease progression.
methodsThis study is designed as a multicenter (n = 3) non-inferiority randomized controlled trial. SSc patients are categorized into three categories for risk of disease progression (low, intermediate, or high) based on a previously published risk prediction model (3). Patients with a predicted low or intermediate risk of disease progression are randomized between (1) follow-up in the outpatient clinic (intervention) and (2) follow-up via usual care according to the annual Care Pathway (control group). The year after the "study visit," all patients are evaluated in the Care Pathway. In this study, 250 patients will be recruited and randomized. The primary outcome is healthcare utilization, which will be assessed via questionnaires. Secondary outcome measures include disease progression, patients' perception of disease and care, and health-related quality of life. Healthcare utilization is defined as the number of contacts with a healthcare professional and will be analyzed using descriptive statistics and linear regression analysis. DISCUSSION: There is an unmet need for tailor-made care for SSc patients in accordance with disease activity, and evidence-based guidelines regarding the follow-up of SSc patients are lacking. This is the first randomized controlled trial evaluating the optimal follow-up for SSc patients at low risk of disease progression. Results of this study will show whether routine assessment at the outpatient clinic is an acceptable alternative to assessment in a standardized care setting including an annual 6-min walk test, an ECG, lab, mRSS, and a pulmonary function test.
trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov NCT05103553. Registered on October 11, 2021.
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.