Canadian Rheumatology Association Recommendations for the Pharmacological Management of Rheumatoid Arthritis with Traditional and Biologic Disease-modifying Antirheumatic Drugs: Part II Safety
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective. The Canadian Rheumatology Association (CRA) has developed recommendations for the pharmacological management of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) with traditional and biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARD) in 2 parts. Part II, focusing on specific safety aspects of treatment with traditional and biologic DMARD in patients with RA, is reported here. Methods. Key questions were identified a priori based on results of a national needs-assessment survey. A systematic review of all clinical practice guidelines and consensus statements regarding treatment with traditional and biologic DMARD in patients with RA published between January 2000 and June 2010 was performed in Medline, Embase, and CINAHL databases, and was supplemented with a “grey literature” search including relevant public health guidelines. Systematic reviews of postmarketing surveillance and RA registry studies were performed to update included guideline literature reviews as appropriate. Guideline quality was independently assessed by 2 reviewers. Guideline characteristics, recommendations, and supporting evidence from observational studies and randomized trials were synthesized into evidence tables. The working group voted on recommendations using a modified Delphi technique. Results. Thirteen recommendations addressing perioperative care, screening for latent tuberculosis infection prior to the initiation of biologic DMARD, optimal vaccination practices, and treatment of RA patients with active or a history of malignancy were developed for rheumatologists, other primary prescribers of RA drug therapies, and RA patients. Conclusion. These recommendations were developed based on a synthesis of international RA and public health guidelines, supporting evidence, and expert consensus in the context of the Canadian health system. They are intended to help promote best practices and improve healthcare delivery for persons with RA.
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 | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".