ArticleClinical rheumatology2026
Ibero-American consensus on reactive arthritis: definition, diagnosis, and management.
Article in Clinical rheumatology, 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
16 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionReactive arthritis (ReA) is characterized by substantial clinical heterogeneity and lacks universally accepted diagnostic criteria. The scarce evidence-based treatment guidelines highlight the urgent need for regionally relevant consensus recommendations.
objectiveTo develop recommendations based on evidence and clinical experience to establish definitions, accurate diagnosis, and therapeutic management of patients with ReA.
methodsA methodological team and a multidisciplinary group of experts were established. MEDLINE, LILACS, Cochrane, and gray literature from conferences (EULAR, ACR, PANLAR, SAR) were analyzed in a systematic literature review (PRISMA). Based on the PICO format and GRADE methodology, treatment recommendations were made. For the development of definitions, a Delphi process was performed until consensus was reached. Consensus for recommendations required at least 70% agreement.
resultsA total of 13 overarching principles and 54 recommendations were formulated, arranged into concepts, definitions, and treatment guidelines. Seventeen specific recommendations regarding the diagnostic process were included. A therapeutic approach was established using an algorithm based on whether the involvement was peripheral, predominantly axial, or entheseal. Treatment was also specified according to extra-musculoskeletal manifestations.
conclusionsFor the first time, this agreement allows for the establishment of uniform therapeutic algorithms and classification criteria across the region. The document represents an essential tool for standardizing healthcare and raising the level of care for patients with ReA. Keypoints • Establishes the first regional consensus providing standardized definitions, diagnostic criteria, and uniform therapeutic algorithms for ReA. • Employs a Delphi process, GRADE methodology, and a rigorous systematic review to develop 54 recommendations and 13 overarching principles. • Despite the limited evidence available for ReA, several treatment recommendations achieved moderate certainty of evidence and strong recommendations, with high expert agreement, including the use of csDMARDs after failure of NSAIDs and/or corticosteroids (100%) and sulfasalazine as the preferred csDMARD (91%).
Indexed as
Identifiers
42700296What 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.