A systematic review to explore the impact of anxiety on quality of life and treatment outcomes in rheumatoid arthritis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background Rheumatoid arthritis (RA) is the commonest inflammatory arthritis. Comorbid anxiety and depression are common, but under-recognised and under-treated. Depression in RA has been linked to reduced quality of life and treatment response and increased mortality. Past research into co-morbid mood problems in RA has mainly focused on the prevalence and impact of depression. Aim To complete a systematic review to explore the impact of anxiety on QOL and treatment outcomes in RA. Method The systematic review has been registered on PROSPERO. Databases (Web of Science, PsycINFO, CINAHL, Embase and Medline) have been systematically searched for relevant studies. Titles and abstracts have been independently screened by two reviewers. Data extraction and quality appraisal of studies will be carried out using a customized and piloted data extraction tool and the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. Disagreements will be resolved through discussion or by a third reviewer. A narrative synthesis framework will be used to develop a theory of how anxiety impacts on QOL and treatment response and a meta-analysis performed. Results The search has identified 6404 articles. After title screening, 284 abstracts have been reviewed and 48 full texts are being reviewed for inclusion. Full text review is ongoing, and results of the analysis will be presented. Conclusion Highlighting the impact of anxiety on outcomes in RA may suggest areas for future implementation studies to improve patient outcomes, potentially reducing associated morbidity and mortality.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".