The Reporting of Patient-reported Outcomes in Studies of Patients with Rheumatoid Arthritis: A Systematic Review of 250 Articles
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Patient-reported outcomes (PRO) in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) provide important information regarding disease effect. The study objective was to assess the frequency of PRO use in recent RA studies and compare results with a previous systematic review (SR) in 2005-2007. METHODS: An SR was performed in PubMed MEDLINE (January 2015). Publications were identified using these MEdical Subject Headings terms: "arthritis, rheumatoid" with a limitation to "humans," "all adults: 19+ years," "English," "published in the last 2 years," and "clinical trials." All studies were assessed, whatever their designs. All PRO reported in publications were classified according to general domains of health by 2 authors. Statistics were descriptive. RESULTS: Two hundred fifty articles were analyzed. Of them, 113 (45.2%) were randomized controlled trials; 138 different PRO were reported. The most frequent PRO, similar to the 2007 SR, were function (68.0%), pain (40.0%), patient's global assessment (49.2%), and health-related quality of life (18.4%). Fatigue (14.4%), morning stiffness (10.0%), psychological status (9.6%), productivity losses (6.4%), utility (5.2%), sleep disturbance (2.4%), and coping (2.0%) were rarely reported. Although frequent domains were reported using well-validated questionnaires, the others were reported using heterogeneous questionnaires. CONCLUSION: The PRO collected and reported in RA studies are remarkably consistent with those seen in 2005-2007, and reflect the existing RA Core Set measures. Other domains of health prioritized by patients including fatigue, psychological status, productivity losses, sleep disturbance, and coping remain rarely reported. Further, heterogeneity in outcome measures used presents challenges in interpreting true disease effect and response to therapy.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.028 | 0.120 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.009 | 0.008 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.024 | 0.025 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".