ReviewRheumatology advances in practice2026
The prevalence of interstitial lung disease in rheumatoid arthritis: a systematic review.
Review in Rheumatology advances in practice, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Recent Knowledge Regarding the Epidemiology, Exacerbating Factors, and Treatment of Rheumatoid Arthritis Complicated by Interstitial Lung Disease.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Review
- Prevalence and screening of interstitial lung disease in rheumatoid arthritis.Rheumatology advances in practice · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objectives: Interstitial lung disease (ILD) is an important comorbidity in RA. Its true prevalence remains unclear. We assessed reported prevalences across different diagnostic approaches. Methods: We conducted a systematic literature review and meta-analysis to assess RA-ILD prevalence. Embase, MEDLINE (PubMed), Cochrane Library and Web of Science were searched (from inception to 2022). Heterogeneity was assessed ( Results: We included 74 studies and obtained an overall random effects pooled prevalence of 20.6% (95% CI 18.3, 23.2; Conclusion: Due to extreme heterogeneity and evidence of small-study effects, the overall pooled random effects prevalence (20%) should be interpreted cautiously and primarily reflects the wide variation in diagnostic approaches. Estimates derived from low-bias and multimodal diagnostic studies (≈10-13%) may provide a more clinically meaningful approximation, although they remain informed estimates rather than definitive prevalence rates.
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.