| 1. |
- Lauper, K, et al.
(author)
-
Analysing and reporting of observational data: a systematic review informing the EULAR points to consider when analysing and reporting comparative effectiveness research with observational data in rheumatology
- 2021
-
In: RMD open. - : BMJ. - 2056-5933. ; 7:3
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- To evaluate the analysis and reporting of comparative effectiveness research with observational data in rheumatology, informing European Alliance of Associations for Rheumatology points to consider.MethodsWe performed a systematic literature review searching Ovid MEDLINE for original articles comparing drug effectiveness in longitudinal observational studies, published in key rheumatology journals between 2008 and 2019. The extracted information focused on reporting and types of analyses. We evaluated if year of publication impacted results.ResultsFrom 9969 abstracts reviewed, 211 articles fulfilled the inclusion criteria. Ten per cent of studies did not adjust for confounding factors. Some studies did not explain how they chose covariates for adjustment (9%), used bivariate screening (21%) and/or stepwise selection procedures (18%). Only 33% studies reported the number of patients lost to follow-up and 25% acknowledged attrition (drop-out or treatment cessation). To account for attrition, studies used non-responder imputation, followed by last observation carried forward (LOCF) and complete case (CC) analyses. Most studies did not report the number of missing data on covariates (83%), and when addressed, 49% used CC and 11% LOCF. Date of publication did not influence the results.ConclusionMost studies did not acknowledge missing data and attrition, and a tenth did not adjust for any confounding factors. When attempting to account for them, several studies used methods which potentially increase bias (LOCF, CC analysis, bivariate screening…). This study shows that there is no improvement over the last decade, highlighting the need for recommendations for the assessment and reporting of comparative drug effectiveness in observational data in rheumatology.
|
|
| 2. |
- Mosor, E, et al.
(author)
-
Young people's perspectives on patient-reported outcome measures in inflammatory arthritis: results of a multicentre European qualitative study from a EULAR task force
- 2021
-
In: RMD open. - : BMJ. - 2056-5933. ; 7:1
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- Although patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) are increasingly used in clinical practice and research, it is unclear whether these instruments cover the perspective of young people with inflammatory arthritis (IA). The aims of this study were to explore whether PROMs commonly used in IA adequately cover the perspective of young people from different European countries.MethodsA multinational qualitative study was conducted in Austria, Croatia, Italy and the Netherlands. Young people with either rheumatoid arthritis (RA), juvenile idiopathic arthritis (JIA), Still’s disease, psoriatic arthritis (PsA) or spondyloarthritis (SpA), aged 18–35 years, participated in semistructured focus group interviews. Thematic analysis was used and data saturation was defined as no new emergent concepts in at least three subsequent focus groups.ResultsFifty-three patients (21 with RA/JIA/Still’s, 17 with PsA, 15 with SpA; 72% women) participated in 12 focus groups. Participants expressed a general positive attitude towards PROMs and emphasised their importance in clinical practice. In addition, 48 lower level concepts were extracted and summarised into 6 higher level concepts describing potential issues for improvement. These included: need for lay-term information regarding the purpose of using PROMs; updates of certain outdated items and using digital technology for data acquisition. Some participants admitted their tendency to rate pain, fatigue or disease activity differently from what they actually felt for various reasons.ConclusionsDespite their general positive attitude, young people with IA suggested areas for PROM development to ensure that important concepts are included, making PROMs relevant over the entire course of a chronic disease.
|
|
| 3. |
- Ritschl, V, et al.
(author)
-
Suitability for e-health of non-pharmacological interventions in connective tissue diseases: scoping review with a descriptive analysis
- 2021
-
In: RMD open. - : BMJ. - 2056-5933. ; 7:2
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- Non-pharmacological interventions support patients with connective tissue diseases to better cope with and self-manage their diseases. This study aimed to map existing evidence on non-pharmacological interventions in patients with systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE), systemic sclerosis (SSc) and mixed connective tissue diseases regarding content, feasibility and potential suitability in an e-health setting.MethodsA literature search was performed in eight different databases in July 2020. The intervention’s content was extracted using the ‘Better reporting of interventions: template for intervention description and replication (TIDieR) checklist and guide’. A Sankey diagram and descriptive statistics were used to analyse the data and illustrate the relationships between the interventions.ResultsOf 8198 identified records, 119 papers were eligible. One hundred and four of them (87.4%) were conducted between 2000 and 2020, mainly in the USA (SLE n=24 (21.2%), SSc n=16 (14.2%)), Brazil (SLE n=8 (7.1%), SSc n=5 (4.4%)) and Italy (SLE n=0 (0%), SSc n=12 (10.6%)). Fifty-two studies (SLE n=24 (21.2%), SSc n=28 (24.8%)) used multicomponent interventions. The single interventions were physical exercises (SLE n=16 (14.2%), SSc n=17 (15.0%)), coaching/counselling (SLE n=11 (18.0%), SSc n=0 (0%)) and education (SLE n=2 (1.8%), SSc n=3 (2.7%)). Primary outcomes focused on physical function (SLE n=1 (0.9%), SSc n=15 (13.3%)), mouth opening in SSc (n=4 (5.9%)) and physical capacity (SLE n=2 (1.8%), SSc n=1 (0.9%)). No interventions for mixed connective tissue disease were found.ConclusionThere was a great variety in the intervention’s content due to differences in body structure, activity limitations and participation restrictions in SLE and SSc. These results highlight the need for personalised, multicomponent, non-pharmacological interventions, which could be delivered as e-health interventions.
|
|
| 4. |
- Unger, J, et al.
(author)
-
The Experiences of Functioning and Health of Patients With Primary Sjögren's Syndrome: A Multicenter Qualitative European Study
- 2021
-
In: Frontiers in medicine. - : Frontiers Media SA. - 2296-858X. ; 8, s. 770422-
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- Objective: To identify a spectrum of perspectives on functioning and health of patients with primary Sjögren's syndrome (pSS) from the five European countries in order to reveal commonalities and insights in their experiences.Methods: A multicenter focus group study on the patients with pSS about their perspectives of functioning and health was performed. Focus groups were chaired by trained moderators based on an interview guide, audiotaped, and transcribed. After conducting a meaning condensation analysis of each focus group, we subsequently combined the extracted concepts from each country and mapped them to the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF).Results: Fifty-one patients with pSS participated in 12 focus groups. We identified a total of 82 concepts meaningful to people with pSS. Of these, 55 (67%) were mentioned by the patients with pSS in at least four of five countries and 36 (44%) emerged in all the five countries. Most concepts were assigned to the ICF components activities and participation (n = 25, 30%), followed by 22 concepts (27%) that were considered to be not definable or not covered by the ICF; 15 concepts (18%) linked to body structures and functions. Participants reported several limitations in the daily life due to a mismatch between the capabilities of the person, the demands of the environment and the requirements of the activities.Conclusion: Concepts that emerged in all the five non-English speaking countries may be used to guide the development and adaption of the patient-reported outcome measures and to enhance the provision of treatment options based on the aspects meaningful to patients with pSS in clinical routine.
|
|
