Clinical trial discrimination of physical function instruments for psoriatic arthritis: A systematic review.
Clicks: 312
ID: 121945
2020
Article Quality & Performance Metrics
Overall Quality
Not rated
Combines reader engagement with the AI quality analysis. This
article has not been analysed, so there is no overall score —
reader engagement is measured and shown alongside.
Reader Engagement
Steady Performance
30.0
/100
312 views
30 readers
AI Quality Assessment
Not analyzed
Readership in this journal
SteadyRanked #2 of 3 articles by views in seminars in arthritis and rheumatism
Most read
Least read
Bar heights use a square-root scale.
Mint this article as an NFT
Not yet mintedCreate a permanent, verifiable on-chain record of this article on the Scimatic Network. The NFT is held in your Journament account, and you can withdraw it to your own wallet at any time.
5
SUSD
one-off · no wallet required
Abstract
Physical function (PF) is a core domain to be measured in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of psoriatic arthritis (PsA), yet the discriminative performance of patient reported outcome measures (PROMs) for PF in RCTs has not been evaluated systematically. In this systematic review, we aimed to evaluate the clinical trial discrimination of PF-PROMs in PsA RCTs.We searched PubMed and Scopus databases in English to identify all original RCTs on biological and targeted synthetic disease modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (DMARDs) conducted in PsA. We assessed quality in each article using the OMERACT good method checklist. Effect sizes (ES) for the PF-PROMs were calculated and appraised using a priori hypotheses. Evidence supporting clinical trial discrimination for each PF-PROM was summarized to derive recommendations.35 articles from 31 RCTs were included. Four PF-PROMs had data for evaluation: HAQ-Disability Index (DI), HAQ-Spondyloarthritis (S), and Short Form 36-item Health Survey Physical Component Summary (SF-36 PCS) and Physical Functioning domain (SF-36 PF). As anticipated, higher ES values were observed for intervention groups than the control groups. Across all studies, for HAQ-DI, the median ES were -0.73 and -0.24 for intervention and control groups, respectively. Whereas for SF-36 PCS, the median ES were 0.77 and 0.23. For intervention and control groups, respectively.Clinical trial discrimination was supported for HAQ-DI and SF-36 PCS in PsA with low risk of bias; and for SF-36 PF and HAQ-S with some caution. More studies are required for HAQ-S.
| Reference Key |
leung2020clinicalseminars
Use this key to autocite in the manuscript while using
SciMatic Manuscript Manager or Thesis Manager
|
|---|---|
| Authors | Leung, Ying-Ying;Holland, Richard;Mathew, Ashish J;Lindsay, Christine;Goel, Niti;Ogdie, Alexis;Orbai, Ana-Maria;Hojgaard, Pil;Chau, Jeffrey;Coates, Laura C;Strand, Vibeke;Gladman, Dafna D;Christensen, Robin;Tillett, William;Mease, Philip; |
| Journal | seminars in arthritis and rheumatism |
| Year | 2020 |
| DOI |
S0049-0172(20)30166-9
|
| URL | |
| Keywords |
Citations
No citations found. To add a citation, contact the admin at info@scimatic.org
Comments
No comments yet. Be the first to comment on this article.