ArticleEULAR rheumatology open2025
Patient self-assessment and virtual visit-based treatment decisions in rheumatoid arthritis: results from the multicentre Telemedicine in Rheumatoid Arthritis trial.
Article in EULAR rheumatology open, 2025. 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
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objectives: The growing shortage of rheumatologists threatens rheumatology care. Patient self-assessment and asynchronous virtual visits may improve efficiency. This study assessed the concordance of face-to-face (F2F) and virtual visit-based treatment decisions in individuals with rheumatoid arthritis (RA), incorporating patient self-assessment. Methods: This prospective 3-month multicentre trial recruited RA patients across 4 university centres in Germany. Patients used a medical app to document the results of a self-performed C-reactive protein (CRP) test, joint count, therapeutic suggestions, and electronic patient-reported outcomes (ePROs) before their regular F2F consultations and ePROs on a weekly basis in-between consultations. Independent tele-rheumatologists provided treatment recommendations based on these data. The primary outcome was the level of agreement between tele-rheumatologists and patients on treatment decisions (escalation, unchanged, de-escalation), compared with F2F rheumatologists' decisions. Secondary outcomes included change in patient activation (Patient Activation Measure [PAM]) and in patient-perceived ability to assess their disease activity. Results: A total of 208 consultations and 114 patients (80.7% female, mean age 51.6 years) were included. Most often (63%), treatment remained unchanged, whereas 24% required escalation and 14% de-escalation. F2F treatment decisions aligned with tele-rheumatologist decisions in 77% of cases and patient suggestions in 67% of cases. The accuracy of tele-rheumatologist decisions was 77% for maintaining treatment, 87% for de-escalation, and 91% for escalation. No significant changes in patient activation and patients' ability to assess their disease activity were observed. Conclusions: The study demonstrated substantial agreement between virtual asynchronous and F2F treatment decisions. However, further refinement of asynchronous care models and validation studies is crucial.
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.