ReviewCurrent opinion in rheumatology2026
Evidence-based follow-up in axial spondyloarthritis: how much is (not) enough?
Review in Current opinion in rheumatology, 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
purpose of reviewPresent follow-up strategies for axial spondyloarthritis (axSpA) entail frequent preplanned in-person outpatient visits. Capacity constraints make this approach increasingly difficult, and it is plausible that regular follow-up in axSpA is not necessary for all patients. The purpose of this review is to discuss emerging alternative follow-up strategies to improve care efficiency in axSpA, and the challenges of applying these solutions in clinical practice. RECENT
findingsPatient-initiated follow-up (PIFU) and remote monitoring have been investigated in axSpA in two recent trials. These strategies demonstrated meaningful reductions in the number of outpatient visits and associated healthcare costs in patients with stable (ax)SpA, without negatively affecting health outcomes. Qualitative studies have additionally shown widespread acceptability of PIFU and remote monitoring from the perspective of both patients and healthcare providers, and their ability to enhance self-efficacy of patients. Loss to follow-up, delayed care, and logistical limitations are associated concerns requiring further consideration. SUMMARY: PIFU and remote monitoring hold potential as effective, efficient, and safe strategies for the follow-up of patients with axSpA. For successful implementation in practice, their inherent challenges must be addressed, including the careful selection and training of patients, and ensuring the necessary infrastructure.
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.