Impact of remission definitions on residual symptom burden assessed using the Okomarigoto Sheet in rheumatoid arthritis: a comparison between Boolean 1.0 and Boolean 2.0

Clicks: 26
ID: 325879
2026
Free PDF
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.
AI Quality Assessment
Not analyzed
Readership in this journal
Emerging

Ranked #20 of 47 articles by views in modern rheumatology

Most read Least read

Bar heights use a square-root scale.

Mint this article as an NFT
Not yet minted

Create 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
Sign in to mint
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: This study examined whether adopting the Boolean 2.0 remission criteria results in the inclusion of patients with a higher burden of residual symptoms (RS) in rheumatoid arthritis (RA). It also aimed to characterize differences in RS burden across remission definitions. METHODS: This cross-sectional, single-center study included 400 consecutive patients with RA. RSs were assessed using the Okomarigoto Sheet (OS), which evaluates pain, morning stiffness, and fatigue. Clinical remission was defined using the Disease Activity Score in 28 joints with C-reactive protein (DAS28-CRP), Clinical Disease Activity Index (CDAI), Simplified Disease Activity Index (SDAI), and Boolean 1.0 and 2.0 criteria. The primary outcome was the proportion of patients achieving OS = 0. Mixed-effects logistic regression and subgroup analyses were conducted to compare RS burden across remission definitions. RESULTS: The proportion of patients achieving complete absence of RSs differed across remission definitions, with the highest rate observed in Boolean 1.0 remission (52.7%), followed by Boolean 2.0 (45.0%) and DAS28-CRP (37.5%). Compared with Boolean 1.0 remission, patients meeting Boolean 2.0 but not Boolean 1.0 criteria had significantly higher total and domain-specific OS scores (all p < 0.001). Similar findings were observed among patients achieving DAS28-CRP remission but not Boolean 1.0 remission. Mixed-effects logistic regression indicated no significant difference between Boolean 1.0 and Boolean 2.0 remission in achieving OS = 0. CONCLUSIONS: RS burden in RA varies depending on the remission definition. Boolean 2.0 remission expands the classification of remission and is associated with higher multidimensional residual symptom scores than Boolean 1.0 remission.
Reference Key
openalex_W7203908207 Use this key to autocite in the manuscript while using SciMatic Manuscript Manager or Thesis Manager
Authors Kensuke Koyama, Tetsuro Ohba, Ryousuke Koizumi, Koki Watabe, Hirotaka Haro
Journal modern rheumatology
Year 2026
DOI
10.1093/mr/roag069
URL
https://doi.org/10.1093/mr/roag069
Keywords Keywords not found

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.