Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41689135›Full record

ArticleTrials2026

Exploring the optimal follow-up for systemic sclerosis patients: study protocol for a Dutch multicenter randomized controlled trial.

Eva M Hoekstra, Sophie I E Liem, Saad Ahmed, Lisanne D Dijkman, Katherine E van der Wouden, Nina M van Leeuwen, Ada M Hortensius-Varkevisser, Susan E van der Lans, Liesbeth J J Beaart-van de Voorde, Henrike Gillet-van Dongen and 4 more

Registry-linked trialAbstract readClinical Trial Protocol
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

NCT05103553 naunknown statusnot on this map

Value Based Health Care in Systemic Sclerosis: What is the Optimal Follow-up for Patients With Systemic Sclerosis?

TypeinterventionalSponsorLeiden University Medical CenterRan2022 to 2026Enrolled250ConditionsSystemic SclerosisArmsOutpatient Clinic
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

14 authors.

Eva M HoekstraDepartment of Rheumatology, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, RC, 2300, The Netherlands. e.m.hoekstra.ana@lumc.nl.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2437-6016
Sophie I E LiemDepartment of Rheumatology, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, RC, 2300, The Netherlands.
Saad AhmedDepartment of Rheumatology, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, RC, 2300, The Netherlands.
Lisanne D DijkmanDepartment of Rheumatology, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, RC, 2300, The Netherlands.
Katherine E van der WoudenDepartment of Rheumatology, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, RC, 2300, The Netherlands.
Nina M van LeeuwenDepartment of Rheumatology, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, RC, 2300, The Netherlands.
Ada M Hortensius-VarkevisserDepartment of Rheumatology, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, RC, 2300, The Netherlands.
Susan E van der LansDepartment of Rheumatology, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, RC, 2300, The Netherlands.
Liesbeth J J Beaart-van de VoordeDepartment of Rheumatology, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, RC, 2300, The Netherlands.
Henrike Gillet-van DongenDepartment of Rheumatology, Haaglanden Medical Center, The Hague, The Netherlands.
Rachel KnevelDepartment of Rheumatology, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, RC, 2300, The Netherlands.
Tom W J HuizingaDepartment of Rheumatology, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, RC, 2300, The Netherlands.
Anne A SchouffoerDepartment of Rheumatology, HagaZiekenhuis, The Hague, The Netherlands.
Jeska K de Vries-BouwstraDepartment of Rheumatology, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, RC, 2300, The Netherlands.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

Scleroderma, SystemicDisease ProgressionEquivalence Trials as TopicHumansMulticenter Studies as TopicNetherlandsQuality of LifeRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicRisk AssessmentRisk FactorsTime FactorsDisease progressionHealthcare utilizationSystemic sclerosis

Identifiers

PMID41689135
PMCPMC13011557

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

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.