ArticleRMD open2024
Agreement between patient-reported flares and clinically significant flare status in patients with rheumatoid arthritis in sustained remission: data from the ARCTIC REWIND trials.
Article in RMD open, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Characterizing Adherence to a Mobile Health App for Patient-Reported Outcomes in Rheumatoid Arthritis.Rheumatology and therapy · 2026Article
- Sustaining remission in rheumatoid arthritis: the role of clinical deep remission and its implications for drug tapering.RMD open · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo explore the agreement between patient-reported flare status and clinically significant flare status in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) in sustained remission.
methodPatients with RA in remission for ≥12 months on stable treatment were included in the ARCTIC REWIND tapering trials and pooled 12-month data used in current analyses. Patient-reported flare status was assessed according to the Outcome Measures in Rheumatology flare questionnaire; 'Are you having a flare of your RA at this time?' (yes/no). A clinically significant flare was defined as a combination of Disease Activity Score (DAS) >1.6, increase in DAS of ≥0.6 and 2 swollen joints, or the rheumatologist and patient agreed that a clinically significant flare had occurred. Agreement coefficient, sensitivity, specificity and predictive values of patient-reported flare status with regard to clinically significant flare status were determined.
resultsOf 248 patients, 64% were women, age 56.1 (11.8) years, disease duration 4.1 (2.8-7.4) years, DAS 0.8 (0.3). 35% of patients reported a flare at least once, clinically significant flares were recorded in 21%. 48/53 clinically significant flares (91%) led to an intensification of disease-modifying antirheumatic drugss. In 621/682 (91%) visits, patient-reported and clinically significant flare status were in agreement, agreement coefficient 0.89. Sensitivity and specificity were both 91%, positive predictive value of patient-reported flare status 46% and negative predictive value 99%.
conclusionAmong patients in sustained remission, patient-reported flare status was accurate in ruling out a clinically significant flare. About half of the patient-reported flares were assessed to be clinically significant. These findings support a potential for using patient-reported flare status in remote monitoring of patients with RA in sustained remission.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.