ArticleArthritis research & therapy2025
Toward digitally supported self-assessment of patients with idiopathic inflammatory myopathies.
Article in Arthritis research & therapy, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundManual muscle testing (MMT8), the current gold standard for assessing muscle function in patients with idiopathic inflammatory myopathies (IIM), has notable limitations. This study had three aims (1) to compare MMT8 with inertial sensor-based gait analysis, (2) to evaluate patient-performed functional tests guided by shared decision-making (SDM), and (3) to investigate adherence to electronic patient-reported outcomes (ePROs).
methodsGold standard muscle function assessment (MMT8) was performed at baseline (T0) and three months (T1). Additionally, inertial-sensor-based gait analysis was completed at T0 and two standardized upper extremity (Modified Barré test; 10-time arm lift test) and two lower extremity muscle endurance tests (60-second Sit-to-Stand (STS) test; Mingazzini test) were presented to patients to choose from. Through shared decision-making, each patient selected one test for lower and upper extremities and opted to record weekly results on paper or through a medical app. Correlations between gait parameters, functional tests, and MMT8 were analyzed, while agreement between patient- and healthcare professional (HCP)-recorded results at T0 and T1 was assessed. Responsiveness to change was also evaluated.
resultsA total of 28 IIM patients (67.9% female; mean age 57.4 ± 12.9 years) were enrolled. Moderate correlations were observed between gait parameters and MMT8, such as walking speed (r = 0.545, p = 0.004) and stride length (r = 0.580, p = 0.002). All patients selected the Modified Barré test for assessing upper extremity function and 60.7% of patients chose the Mingazzini test for lower extremity function. Agreement between patient- and HCP-recorded functional test results was excellent at baseline and after three months (ICC 0.99-1.00). Functional tests demonstrated strong correlations with MMT8, particularly for the Mingazzini test (r = 0.762, p = 0.002). Patients preferred app-based recording (82.1%) over paper-based methods and weekly ePROs were completed on average 6.9 out of 12 weeks (57.5%).
conclusionPatient-performed functional tests are reliable, scalable alternatives to MMT8, with gait analysis providing complementary insights. Digitally supported self-assessments can enhance clinical workflows, remote monitoring, and treat-to-target strategies, empowering patients and improving disease management.
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.