MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4214931705 · doi:10.1002/acr.24839

2021 American College of Rheumatology Guideline for the Treatment of Juvenile Idiopathic Arthritis: Recommendations for Nonpharmacologic Therapies, Medication Monitoring, Immunizations, and Imaging

2022· review· en· W4214931705 on OpenAlexaff
Karen Onel, Daniel B. Horton, Daniel J. Lovell, Susan Shenoi, Carlos A. Cuello‐García, Sheila T. Angeles‐Han, Mara L. Becker, Randy Q. Cron, Brian M. Feldman, Polly J. Ferguson, Harry L. Gewanter, Jaime Guzmán, Yukiko Kimura, Tzielan Lee, Katherine Murphy, Peter A. Nigrović, Michael J. Ombrello, C. Egla Rabinovich, Melissa Tesher, Marinka Twilt, Marisa S. Klein‐Gitelman, Fatima Barbar‐Smiley, Ashley M. Cooper, Barbara Edelheit, Miriah Gillispie‐Taylor, Kimberly A. Hays, Melissa L. Mannion, Rosemary Peterson, Elaine Flanagan, Nadine Saad, Nancy Sullivan, Ann Marie Szymanski, Rebecca Trachtman, Marat Turgunbaev, Keila Veiga, Amy S. Turner, James Reston

Bibliographic record

VenueArthritis Care & Research · 2022
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAutoimmune and Inflammatory Disorders Research
Canadian institutionsAlberta Children's HospitalUniversity of CalgaryHospital for Sick ChildrenBC Children's HospitalMcMaster University
FundersNational Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin DiseasesNational Institutes of Health
KeywordsMedicineGuidelinePhysical therapyRheumatologyPsychological interventionOligoarthritisUveitisIntensive care medicineArthritisSystematic reviewPopulationQuality of life (healthcare)Internal medicineMEDLINEPolyarthritisPathologyNursing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: To provide recommendations for the management of juvenile idiopathic arthritis (JIA) with a focus on nonpharmacologic therapies, medication monitoring, immunizations, and imaging, irrespective of JIA phenotype. METHODS: We developed clinically relevant Patient/Population, Intervention, Comparison, and Outcomes questions. After conducting a systematic literature review, the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach was used to rate the quality of evidence (high, moderate, low, or very low). A Voting Panel including clinicians and patients/caregivers achieved consensus on the direction (for or against) and strength (strong or conditional) of recommendations. RESULTS: Recommendations in this guideline include the use of physical therapy and occupational therapy interventions; a healthy, well-balanced, age-appropriate diet; specific laboratory monitoring for medications; widespread use of immunizations; and shared decision-making with patients/caregivers. Disease management for all patients with JIA is addressed with respect to nonpharmacologic therapies, medication monitoring, immunizations, and imaging. Evidence for all recommendations was graded as low or very low in quality. For that reason, more than half of the recommendations are conditional. CONCLUSION: This clinical practice guideline complements the 2019 American College of Rheumatology JIA and uveitis guidelines, which addressed polyarthritis, sacroiliitis, enthesitis, and uveitis, and a concurrent 2021 guideline on oligoarthritis, temporomandibular arthritis, and systemic JIA. It serves as a tool to support clinicians, patients, and caregivers in decision-making. The recommendations take into consideration the severity of both articular and nonarticular manifestations as well as patient quality of life. Although evidence is generally low quality and many recommendations are conditional, the inclusion of caregivers and patients in the decision-making process strengthens the relevance and applicability of the guideline. It is important to remember that these are recommendations. Clinical decisions, as always, should be made by the treating clinician and patient/caregiver.

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)0.017
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.060
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.045
Threshold uncertainty score0.091

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0170.060
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.008
Bibliometrics0.0090.006
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0050.002
Research integrity0.0070.008
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.005

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 head0.087
GPT teacher head0.443
Teacher spread0.356 · 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

Citations45
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueArthritis Care & ResearchSame topicAutoimmune and Inflammatory Disorders ResearchFrench-language works237,207