Treating Rheumatoid Arthritis to Target
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
BACKGROUND: Recently, many countries, including Canada, evaluated rheumatologists' acceptance and agreement with a set of 10 Treat to Target (T2T) recommendations for rheumatoid arthritis (RA), developed by an international task force. In this study, the Canadian T2T steering committee evaluated how Canadian patients with RA perceive these recommendations. OBJECTIVES: The objectives of this study were to assess the current state of RA management in Canada from a patient perspective and to assess whether and to what extent Canadians with RA agree with each of the 10 T2T recommendations and to compare the results with a previous survey completed by physicians. METHODS: Participating rheumatologists were asked to invite consecutive RA patients to complete a 20-question survey. The survey was designed to assess relevant sociodemographic variables, the current treatment, and the approach to RA management as seen from the patient's perspective, as well as their agreement with the T2T recommendations. RESULTS: A total of 959 patients (77% were female) were recruited by 22 participating rheumatologists from 6 Canadian provinces. Patients had a mean age of 59.1 years and mean disease duration of 12.9 years. Approximately 72% of patients were on methotrexate (76.1% combination therapy), and 36.7% were treated with biologics (6.4% monotherapy, 30.3% combination therapy). The agreement with T2T recommendations ranged from 8.6 for recommendation 4 (frequency of adjustment of drug therapy) to 9.5 for recommendation 8 (maintenance of treatment targets). These results are comparable to a previous physicians' survey except that there was more acceptance on the part of patients for more frequent visits (recommendation 5; patient agreement score was 9.06 vs physician agreement score of 6.92) and evaluations for adjustments of therapy (recommendation 6 patient agreement score was 9.39 vs physician agreement score of 7.49) to achieve the stated goal. CONCLUSIONS: The results of this survey showed that Canadian patients are being treated for their RA according to the published treatment recommendations with combination disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs and biologics and a small percentage with oral corticosteroids. The majority of patients seems to be satisfied with their management and is in agreement with the T2T recommendations, although they tended to place greater emphasis than did physicians on flexibility of visit frequency and detailed assessments.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,009 | 0,041 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,003 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».