Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42370119›Full record

ArticleEULAR rheumatology open2026

Rapid access strategies for polymyalgia rheumatica: current knowledge.

Elisabeth L Nielsen, Alex J MacGregor, Max Yates

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in EULAR rheumatology open, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Elisabeth L NielsenAarhus University, Aarhus, Denmark.
Alex J MacGregorNorwich Epidemiology Centre, Norwich Medical School, University of East Anglia, Norwich, UK.
Max YatesNorwich Epidemiology Centre, Norwich Medical School, University of East Anglia, Norwich, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Objectives: Polymyalgia rheumatica (PMR) is frequently seen in primary care, but diagnosis remains challenging due to the absence of a definitive test and substantial clinical overlap with other conditions. Rapid access strategy (RAS) clinics may facilitate accurate diagnosis and have been widely adopted for giant cell arteritis, but their applicability to PMR has not been established. The aim of this review was to assess current evidence on RAS PMR clinic logistics to inform future clinic development. Methods: A systematic review was conducted using PubMed and EMBASE (inception date to July 2025) with search terms matched with Medical Subject Headings and Boolean operators. Data were extracted from the RAS PMR clinic logistics. Results: A total of 26 articles were screened, of which 4 studies on RAS PMR clinics were included. All 4 reported the number of individuals referred for rheumatological assessment, used structured referral criteria, and assessments included diagnostic examinations, but varied in their application of supplementary investigations. Between 59% and 73% of the assessments resulted in a diagnosis of PMR. Promotional initiatives, referral processes, and preassessment glucocorticoid initiation varied, and long-term glucocorticoid treatment and follow-up were insufficiently reported. A greater proportion of males than expected from community-based disease incidence was seen. Conclusions: RAS PMR clinics may potentially improve diagnostic accuracy and reduce inappropriate glucocorticoid initiation, but underreported logistics limit comparability and hinder generalisation. Selection bias was evident across services. No study assessed cost-effectiveness. Future research should focus on defining scalable, evidence-based care pathways before broader adoption can be justified.

Identifiers

PMID42370119
PMCPMC13292282

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.