ArticleRMD open2026
Development of the 'COuld it Be RA' (COBRA) tool to facilitate early identification of people at risk of developing rheumatoid arthritis in primary care.
Article in RMD open, 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesWe aimed to develop a new complex intervention, the 'COuld it Be RA' (COBRA) tool, to support the implementation of a clinical prediction model to identify people likely to be anti-cyclic citrullinated peptide (CCP) positive and at risk of rheumatoid arthritis in primary care.
methodsThe COBRA tool was developed using the UK Medical Research Council and National Institute for Health and Care Research complex intervention research framework. This study involved three sequential phases with primary care clinicians: a qualitative descriptive study, clinician consultation engagement workshops and a think-aloud interview study. Ethical approval was obtained for all three phases.
resultsSixteen primary care clinicians participated in semistructured interviews to identify barriers and facilitators. An initial list of nine candidate components for the intervention, including design considerations, was developed. During phase 2 workshops with eight participants, four components were prioritised as 'Must have' or 'Should have': the clinical decision support system (CDSS); guidance on using the CDSS/associated actions; evidence for the CDSS; patient education resources. A COBRA tool prototype incorporating these components was developed.Twelve participants tested the prototype during think-aloud interviews. Key perceived benefits of the COBRA tool included supporting clinicians' decision-making and reducing unnecessary anti-CCP testing. Over 40 changes were made to the COBRA tool.
conclusionOur research included the views of clinicians and PPI representatives and was underpinned by a complex intervention research framework. This was critical to understanding barriers and facilitators to implementing the clinical prediction model in primary care and developing the COBRA tool.
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.