Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42676706›Full record

ArticleEULAR rheumatology open2026

Risk prediction rules in individuals at risk of rheumatoid arthritis: systematic review and validation using the APIPPRA cohort.

Marianna Jasenecova, Gabrielle Harker, Maryam Adas, Sumera Qureshi, Laurence Duquenne, Michelle Wilson, Elizabeth M A Hensor, Paul Emery, Kulveer Mankia, Katie Bechman and 4 more

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

14 authors.

Marianna JasenecovaCentre for Rheumatic Diseases, King's College London, London, UK.
Gabrielle HarkerCentre for Rheumatic Diseases, King's College London, London, UK.
Maryam AdasCentre for Rheumatic Diseases, King's College London, London, UK.
Sumera QureshiCentre for Rheumatic Diseases, King's College London, London, UK.
Laurence DuquenneLeeds Institute of Rheumatic and Musculoskeletal Medicine, University of Leeds, UK.
Michelle WilsonLeeds Institute of Rheumatic and Musculoskeletal Medicine, University of Leeds, UK.
Elizabeth M A HensorLeeds Institute of Rheumatic and Musculoskeletal Medicine, University of Leeds, UK.
Paul EmeryLeeds Institute of Rheumatic and Musculoskeletal Medicine, University of Leeds, UK.
Kulveer MankiaLeeds Institute of Rheumatic and Musculoskeletal Medicine, University of Leeds, UK.
Katie BechmanCentre for Rheumatic Diseases, King's College London, London, UK.
Kathryn SteelCentre for Rheumatic Diseases, King's College London, London, UK.
Yang LuoKennedy Institute of Rheumatology, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
Sam NortonCentre for Rheumatic Diseases, King's College London, London, UK.
Andrew P CopeCentre for Rheumatic Diseases, King's College London, London, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Objectives: To review risk prediction rules (RPRs) in individuals at risk of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and to externally validate them using an independent interception trial cohort. Methods: We performed a systematic literature search of MEDLINE and EMBASE on November 30, 2023, updated on July 10, 2025, to identify studies reporting RA RPRs in individuals at risk of RA. Each RPR was assessed across 4 Prediction Model Risk of Bias Assessment Tool domains: participants, predictors, outcome, and analysis. Eligible RPRs were externally validated by examining risk score distributions by RA progression, and evaluating discrimination, predictive accuracy and calibration. Results: We identified 25 studies describing 41 RPRs in at-risk individuals. Rules incorporating clinical and serological prognostic factors, with or without imaging, were most common. Internal validation was reported in 23 (56%) RPRs and external validation in only 4 (9%). The discrimination C-statistic ranged from 0.59 to 0.98 during development and was presented as the sole performance measure in 21 (51%) RPRs. External validation of 14 RPRs revealed 4 (29%) with moderate discrimination (C-statistic, 0.6-0.7) and 10 (71%) with poor discrimination (C-statistic, <0.6). Brier scores ranged from 0.20 to 0.24 for 6 RPRs, indicating relatively better overall accuracy, whereas 7 RPRs had poorer overall fit (Brier score ≥0.25). Calibration plots showed reasonable calibration in 2 RPRs, with most demonstrating systematic or partial miscalibration. Conclusions: Existing RA RPRs demonstrated inconsistent performance when externally validated, underscoring population heterogeneity and the need for robust model development, transparent reporting, and independent external validation before clinical implementation.

Identifiers

PMID42676706
PMCPMC13527503

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.