ArticleEULAR rheumatology open2026
Risk prediction rules in individuals at risk of rheumatoid arthritis: systematic review and validation using the APIPPRA cohort.
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.
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
14 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
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.