ArticleRheumatology advances in practice2026
Development and validation of a clinical risk prediction rule to identify inflammatory arthritis at the point of rheumatology triage.
Article in Rheumatology advances in practice, 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objectives: To develop and validate a clinical prediction rule to identify inflammatory arthritis (IA) using routinely collected triage data, without ACPA. Methods: Prospective observational data from 184 patients referred to a tertiary care rheumatology clinic for joint pain over a 9-month period and meeting inclusion criteria were used to derive a clinical risk prediction rule for the diagnosis of IA versus non-IA, utilizing penalized and stepwise logistic regression modelling, including age, sex, CRP and RF. Internal validation was performed using 5-fold cross-validation. A population within the UK Biobank with a diagnosis of incident IA or non-IA, within 180 days of baseline assessment ( Results: In the derivation cohort, CRP had the strongest association with diagnosis of IA in both models, other important predictors being sex and CRP twice the upper limit of normal in the stepwise model (cvAUC = 0.72, 95% CI 0.58, 0.85) and additionally RF and age in the penalized regression model (cvAUC = 0.77, 95% CI 0.59, 0.95). When applied in the UK Biobank, AUC values decreased (0.54-0.55); however, limitations in accurately defining the timing of incident arthritis indicate the need for geographical validation in a cohort that better fits the target population and setting. Conclusions: This simple prediction rule, utilizing demographic and laboratory data, performed well in discriminating IA from non-IA in the derivation population. Additional validation studies in similar clinical settings are required to further refine the model and determine generalizability.
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.