ArticleJournal of managed care & specialty pharmacy2026
Finding consensus on meaningful reporting measures for rheumatoid arthritis: Results from a modified Delphi study.
Article in Journal of managed care & specialty pharmacy, 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
17 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThough specialty pharmacies collect and report a myriad of measures to internal and external stakeholders, these data are infrequently used for evaluating specialty pharmacy performance or clinical decision-making. Establishing standardized specialty pharmacy measures could enable benchmarking, performance-based contracting, and high-cost drug utilization management while improving patient care and specialty medication management.
objectiveTo determine consensus among specialty pharmacy stakeholders on important and usable measures for specialty pharmacies managing patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA).
methodsA modified Delphi study was conducted with a multisite study group (n = 25 sites). Expert panelists from diverse RA-related backgrounds participated in up to 3 survey rounds. An environmental scan informed an initial list of 10 generalized measures. In rounds 1 and 2, panelists rated each measure's importance and usability on an 11-point Likert scale. Measures were categorized to be included, excluded, or rescored based on mean scores. Panelists received group scores and feedback between rounds. In round 3, specialty pharmacy-affiliated panelists assessed the feasibility of measures that reached consensus. Final study group voting categorized measures as core (should be collected and reported by all specialty pharmacies without exception), reach (important and actionable but not yet essential for specialty pharmacies to collect and report), or neither.
resultsOf 315 recruited panelists, 118 participated; response rates were 83% (round 1), 76% (round 2), and 73% (round 3). In round 1, 4 measures met consensus; 3 measures moved forward to be rescored in round 2, and 2 general measures were delineated to more specific measures for feasibility scoring. Feasibility consensus varied. Final study group voting identified 7 specific core measures: adherence, serious adverse effects, patient response to therapy, medication discontinuation, medication switching, and tuberculosis and hepatitis B screening (if applicable). Six reach measures included immunization screening, drug-specific laboratory screening, common AEs, patient functional status, patient disease activity, and medication persistence.
conclusionsThere was a high survey response rate within each round. Consensus was reached for 13 measures deemed important and usable by specialty pharmacy stakeholders, with most considered moderately/very feasible by specialty pharmacists.
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.