MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

P121 The efficacy of treatment interventions on fatigue in adolescents with juvenile idiopathic arthritis: a literature review

2021· review· en· W3157433166 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Sebastian Moshtael, Sonia Khanom, J. E. R. McDonagh

Bibliographic record

VenueLara D. Veeken · 2021
Typereview
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicAdolescent and Pediatric Healthcare
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicinePsycINFOPsychological interventionPhysical therapyMEDLINEChecklistQuality of life (healthcare)Cohort studyRandomized controlled trialClinical psychologyPsychiatryInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background/Aims Fatigue has been reported by young people and professionals alike as a major challenge for people living with juvenile idiopathic arthritis (JIA) . It remains unclear as to how therapeutic interventions impacts on this major symptom. The aim of this review was to determine the current evidence for the effectiveness of therapeutic interventions, non- pharmacological and pharmacological, on improving fatigue in adolescents with JIA. Methods Three electronic databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO) were searched from 2000 to Feb 2020; in addition to manual searches. Articles were eligible for inclusion if they (i) were original research papers, (ii) had fatigue as a primary outcome measure (iii) included adolescents (10-25 years) and (iv) were available in the English language. Results Of the 3,142 records identified, 31 underwent full text assessment and 4 studies were included in the qualitative synthesis including 2 from the Netherlands, 1 Germany, and 1 from Canada. The total number of participants across the 4 studies was 824. Three were randomised controlled trials of nonpharmacological interventions and one was a cohort study from a national drug registry including older adolescents JIA (mean: 19-years). Measurement tools included the Paediatric Quality of life multidimensional fatigue scale, (2 studies), the Checklist for Individual Strength CIS-20 (1 study), a numeric rating scale (1 study). In one study a visual analogue scale for energy level was also utilised. In 2 studies baseline prevalence of fatigue was reported as 60% and 76% respectively. Significant reduction in fatigue was observed in all three nonpharmacological studies. In the registry study, fatigue was noted to be prevalent in spite of the disease being in inactive or minimally active on biologic therapy. In 3 studies the relationship between health-related quality of life and fatigue was highlighted and showed a decreased quality of life in fatigued young people. Conclusion Fatigue is a significant problem in JIA during adolescence and influences quality of life. Improvements in fatigue with non-pharmacological interventions have been reported. However, at present, data is insufficient to conclusively decide which treatment intervention is most efficacious in treating fatigue in young people with JIA. Fatigue should be considered as an important outcome measure for the management of JIA in future evaluations of interventions. Disclosure S. Moshtael: None. S. Khanom: None. J.E. McDonagh: None.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.016
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.032

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.016
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0050.004
Bibliometrics0.0090.009
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0090.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.133
GPT teacher head0.456
Teacher spread0.323 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueLara D. VeekenSame topicAdolescent and Pediatric HealthcareFrench-language works237,207