ArticleEULAR rheumatology open2025
The patient journey in rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases: a systematic review.
Article in EULAR rheumatology open, 2025. 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.
- The journey of Europeans with musculoskeletal complaints: the creation of the SPIDeRR's personas.EULAR rheumatology open · 2026Article
- Referral Patterns, Diagnostic Delay, and Clinical Characteristics of Patients with Axial Spondyloarthritis in a Tertiary Rheumatology Centre in Malaysia: A Retrospective Observational Study.International journal of general medicine · 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objectives: To provide a comprehensive understanding of the patient journey experienced by individuals with rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases (RMDs). Methods: We systematically searched 3 medical databases to identify studies that reported patient experiences, challenges and barriers from the perspectives of both the patient and healthcare provider. Inclusion criteria included peer-reviewed original research articles based on qualitative or mixed methods. The quality of the evidence was evaluated using the Joanna Briggs Institute's (JBI) Critical Appraisal Checklist. Studies were analysed to identify touchpoints (contact of a patient with a healthcare organisation), delays throughout the patient journey, and barriers or challenges. Results: The search identified 1470 records, resulting in the inclusion of 36 studies. According to the JBI checklist, 27 studies were of high or medium-high quality. Eight touchpoints were identified and characterised: (1) awareness, (2) help-seeking, (3) first encounter, (4) clinical suspicion in primary care, (5) diagnostic tests in primary care, (6) management (outside of rheumatology), (7) rheumatology referral and (8) management in rheumatology. Conflicting areas highlight the need for enhanced education for healthcare providers, better coordination of care and a more patient-centred approach to management. Conclusions: The review helped us describe a general patient journey for people with RMDs. Identifying and addressing the conflicting points in the patient journey is essential for improving care and outcomes for individuals with RMDs.
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.