ArticleRMD open2026
Rheumatologist's expertise in estimating risk of developing rheumatoid arthritis in patients with clinically suspect arthralgia: what is the value?
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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionClinical expertise is paramount in medical decision-making. In the setting of arthralgia, this expertise is highly relevant in differentiating clinically suspect arthralgia (CSA) from other musculoskeletal symptoms. However, it remains unclear whether rheumatological expertise is also reliable in estimating the risk of progression to rheumatoid arthritis (RA) in CSA patients. Using clinical expertise is more time-efficient than applying criteria, such as the European Alliance of Associations for Rheumatology/American College of Rheumatology (EULAR/ACR) risk stratification criteria for RA development. This study assessed the accuracy of RA-risk estimation based on rheumatologists' clinical expertise and compared this to these criteria.
methods501 CSA patients from the Leiden CSA cohort and placebo arm of the TREAT EARLIER trial were studied. At baseline, rheumatologists estimated RA risk (0-10 Numeric Rating Scale) informed by history, physical examination and laboratory results. The EULAR/ACR risk stratification criteria (without imaging) were calculated using baseline data. The outcome was RA development (2010 criteria) within 1 year, and the discrimination was compared.
resultsBased on their expertise, rheumatologists estimated the risk of RA as a mean of 5 (SD 1.6) on a 0-10 scale. With an area under the curve (AUC) of 0.64 (95% CI 0.55 to 0.73), patients who did or did not develop RA were moderately differentiated. The RA risk was mainly overestimated compared with observed progression rates. In comparison, the EULAR/ACR risk stratification criteria in the same patients yielded an AUC of 0.91 (95% CI 0.87 to 0.95).
conclusionsRheumatologists' clinical expertise is inaccurate in assessing the risk of developing RA in patients with CSA, due to risk overestimation. This may support the use of established criteria when risk information has clinical or therapeutic implications. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NTR4853-trial-NL4599.
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.