ReviewRheumatology international2026
Divergent approaches to rheumatoid arthritis-associated interstitial lung disease: a comparative analysis of international clinical practice guidelines.
Review in Rheumatology international, 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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Rheumatoid arthritis-associated interstitial lung disease (RA-ILD) is associated with substantial morbidity and mortality. We compared international and regional clinical practice guidelines to identify agreement, differences, and gaps in RA-ILD care. We conducted a narrative comparative review of five guideline groups: ERS/EULAR, ACR/CHEST, EULAR, PANLAR, and ALAT. Recommendations were assessed across screening, diagnosis, monitoring, and treatment, together with their methodological approaches. Diagnostic recommendations showed the greatest agreement: ILD-focused guidelines emphasized high-resolution computed tomography (HRCT), pulmonary function tests, and multidisciplinary evaluation. Screening recommendations differed: ERS/EULAR and ACR/CHEST favored risk-based assessment, whereas ALAT proposed a broader approach that included lung ultrasound as an adjunct, without replacing HRCT. For established RA-ILD, ACR/CHEST suggested, as implementation guidance, pulmonary function testing every 3-12 months during the first year and HRCT when clinically indicated; ERS/EULAR proposed pulmonary function testing every 3-6 months in the first years and periodic HRCT. Treatment showed the greatest divergence. ACR/CHEST conditionally recommended mycophenolate, rituximab, azathioprine, and cyclophosphamide as first-line ILD therapies, whereas ALAT emphasized integrated control of articular and pulmonary disease, particularly with abatacept or rituximab. EULAR and PANLAR primarily addressed RA treatment and did not provide dedicated RA-ILD algorithms. Antifibrotic treatment was considered mainly in progressive fibrosing disease. Guidelines converge on HRCT-based evaluation but differ in screening, monitoring intervals, and treatment priorities. These differences reflect their scope, methodology, and limited RA-ILD-specific evidence. Prospective comparative studies are needed to inform more consistent care.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42888356What 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.