ArticleClinical rheumatology2026
How do general practitioners diagnose and refer potential rheumatic musculoskeletal complaints? A scoping review.
Article in Clinical rheumatology, 2026. 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
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Timely diagnosis and referral of rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases (RMDs) remain challenging in primary care, with substantial diagnostic delays and a high proportion of rheumatology referrals involving patients without inflammatory rheumatic disease. To examine the diagnostic trajectory of patients presenting with RMD-related complaints, we conducted a scoping review. We defined the diagnostic trajectory as the sequence of diagnostic considerations, investigations, management decisions, and referrals from first presentation to diagnosis or specialist referral. Across 47 included studies, early presentations were heterogeneous and non-specific, often leading to repeated consultations and diagnostic revisions. The underlying condition was frequently not suspected initially, requiring multiple visits before it was considered. General practitioners demonstrated reasonable knowledge of inflammatory features, but documentation of these features in routine electronic health records was often incomplete. Laboratory and imaging investigations were widely used and strongly influenced decision-making, functioning as objective gatekeeping tools for referral despite limited diagnostic yield. Marked variation was found between countries in referral patterns and investigations used, suggesting an important role for healthcare system structure in shaping diagnostic trajectories. The evidence base was constrained by predominantly narrow disease-specific populations and few studies capturing the full diagnostic pathway from primary care presentation to specialist diagnosis.Overall, our findings indicate that delayed diagnosis of RMDs reflects knowledge gaps, the ambiguity of early disease, and reliance on objective investigations. Efforts to improve clinical decision-making for early diagnosis and timely referral require consideration of the non-specific, early-stage nature of RMDs in primary care, longitudinal clinical information, and differences between healthcare systems.
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.