ReviewRheumatology advances in practice2026
Synthetic data in rheumatology: a systematic literature review.
Review in Rheumatology advances in practice, 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: To systematically review the methods, validation frameworks, applications and regulatory landscape of synthetic data generation in healthcare, with a specific focus on rheumatology. Methods: We searched PubMed/MEDLINE, Embase and arXiv (January 2016-January 2026). From 1099 database records and 7 expert-identified studies, 701 remained after removing 405 duplicates. Title and abstract screening excluded 353 records; full-text assessment of 348 articles excluded 120 (E1: Results: The 228 included studies encompassed six generation-method categories (generative adversarial networks, diffusion models, large language models, statistical methods, rule-based simulators and hybrid approaches) and five thematic categories (digital twins, privacy-preserving methods, reviews, validation frameworks and healthcare applications), detailed in the supplementary methods. Validation remained inconsistent, with only a minority evaluating fidelity, utility and privacy simultaneously. In rheumatology, 13 studies spanned rheumatoid arthritis ( Conclusion: Synthetic data hold substantial promise for rheumatology, particularly for augmenting small cohorts in low-prevalence diseases, enabling privacy-preserving registry sharing and simulating clinical trial populations. Realizing this potential requires standardized validation, greater attention to privacy and reproducibility and regulatory clarity on synthetic health data.
Indexed as
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.