↓ Skip to main content

Patient-provider discordance between global assessments of disease activity in rheumatoid arthritis: a comprehensive clinical evaluation

Overview of attention for article published in Arthritis Research & Therapy, September 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (72nd percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (70th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
9 X users
facebook
2 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
36 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
74 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Patient-provider discordance between global assessments of disease activity in rheumatoid arthritis: a comprehensive clinical evaluation
Published in
Arthritis Research & Therapy, September 2017
DOI 10.1186/s13075-017-1419-5
Pubmed ID
Authors

Divya N. Challa, Zoran Kvrgic, Andrea L. Cheville, Cynthia S. Crowson, Tim Bongartz, Thomas G. Mason, Eric L. Matteson, Clement J. Michet, Scott T. Persellin, Daniel E. Schaffer, Theresa L. Wampler Muskardin, Kerry Wright, John M. Davis

Abstract

Discordance between patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and their rheumatology health care providers is a common and important problem. The objective of this study was to perform a comprehensive clinical evaluation of patient-provider discordance in RA. A cross-sectional observational study was conducted of consecutive RA patients in a regional practice with an absolute difference of ≥ 25 points between patient and provider global assessments (possible points, 0-100). Data were collected for disease activity measures, clinical characteristics, comorbidities, and medications. In a prospective substudy, participants completed patient-reported outcome measures and underwent ultrasonographic assessment of synovial inflammation. Differences between the discordant and concordant groups were tested using χ(2) and rank sum tests. Multivariable logistic regression was used to develop a clinical model of discordance. Patient-provider discordance affected 114 (32.5%) of 350 consecutive patients. Of the total population, 103 patients (29.5%) rated disease activity higher than their providers (i.e., 'positive' discordance); only 11 (3.1%) rated disease activity lower than their providers and were excluded from further analysis. Positive discordance correlated with negative rheumatoid factor and anticyclic citrullinated peptide antibodies, lack of joint erosions, presence of comorbid fibromyalgia or depression, and use of opioids, antidepressants, or anxiolytics, or fibromyalgia medications. In the prospective study, the group with positive discordance was distinguished by higher pain intensity, neuropathic type pain, chronic widespread pain and associated polysymptomatic distress, and limited functional health status. Depression was found to be an important mediator of positive discordance in low disease activity whereas the widespread pain index was an important mediator of positive discordance in moderate-to-high disease activity states. Ultrasonography scores did not reveal significant differences in synovial inflammation between discordant and concordant groups. The findings provide a deeper understanding of patient-provider discordance than previously known. New insights from this study include the evidence that positive discordance is not associated with unrecognized joint inflammation by ultrasonography and that depression and fibromyalgia appear to play distinct roles in determining positive discordance. Further work is necessary to develop a comprehensive framework for patient-centered evaluation and management of RA and associated comorbidities in patients in the scenario of patient-provider discordance.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 9 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 74 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 74 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 9 12%
Student > Ph. D. Student 8 11%
Student > Bachelor 8 11%
Student > Postgraduate 7 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 6 8%
Other 18 24%
Unknown 18 24%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 28 38%
Nursing and Health Professions 7 9%
Psychology 4 5%
Social Sciences 4 5%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 3 4%
Other 8 11%
Unknown 20 27%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 6. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 09 November 2020.
All research outputs
#6,277,581
of 25,382,440 outputs
Outputs from Arthritis Research & Therapy
#1,369
of 3,380 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#91,335
of 328,544 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Arthritis Research & Therapy
#15
of 50 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,382,440 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 75th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,380 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 9.2. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 59% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 328,544 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 72% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 50 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 70% of its contemporaries.