Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorWalsh, David A
dc.date.accessioned2022-04-27T10:34:10Z
dc.date.available2022-04-27T10:34:10Z
dc.date.issued2011-01
dc.identifier.citationYoung, A. et al. (2011) ‘An evaluation of the strengths and weaknesses of a register of newly diagnosed rheumatoid arthritis, 1986-2010’, Rheumatology (Oxford, England), 50(1), pp. 176–183en_US
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12904/15378
dc.description.abstractObjectives: To evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of a register of management and outcomes of recently diagnosed RA, and allow comparisons between rheumatology centres on good clinical practice and guidelines. Methods: A register of newly diagnosed RA was initiated in 1986 in nine different regions of England, later expanded to UK-wide membership in 2002. Standardized data collection includes disease activity, function, radiological damage, therapy, hospitalizations, major comorbidity and mortality. A centralized database generates individual reports and comparative data for each centre yearly. Aims have been compared with actual achievements and any changes over 25 years. Results: Thirty rheumatology centres have recruited 2866 patients. Study outputs have included peer-reviewed scientific publications and contributions to the recent National Audit Office report on RA. Referral times into secondary care have changed little over 25 years, but time to initiation of drug therapies has decreased. Delays between publication of clinical trial evidence and management guidelines and their implementation in normal clinical practice are illustrated by relatively infrequent use of combination therapies at diagnosis. Consecutive case recruitment, centre participation and follow-up were reportedly compromised by local funding issues. Centre participants report a benefit from feedback of actual clinical practice compared with recommended standards of care. Conclusions: Most of the original objectives have been achieved. Cohort studies based predominantly in District General Hospitals provide unique insights into the natural history and impact of RA, its management, the translation of research findings into clinical practice and provide participating centres with important clinical governance and professional development opportunities.
dc.description.urihttps://academic.oup.com/rheumatology/article/50/1/176/1790552en_US
dc.publisherRheumatology (Oxford)en_US
dc.subjectRheumatoid arthritisen_US
dc.subjectRA outcomesen_US
dc.subjectDisease registryen_US
dc.subjectDMARDsen_US
dc.titleAn evaluation of the strengths and weaknesses of a register of early Rheumatoid Arthritisen_US
dc.typeArticleen_US
rioxxterms.funderDefault funderen_US
rioxxterms.identifier.projectDefault projecten_US
rioxxterms.versionNAen_US
rioxxterms.versionofrecord10.1093/rheumatology/keq318en_US
rioxxterms.typeJournal Article/Reviewen_US
refterms.dateFOA2022-04-27T10:34:11Z
refterms.panelUnspecifieden_US
refterms.dateFirstOnline2010-10
html.description.abstractObjectives: To evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of a register of management and outcomes of recently diagnosed RA, and allow comparisons between rheumatology centres on good clinical practice and guidelines. Methods: A register of newly diagnosed RA was initiated in 1986 in nine different regions of England, later expanded to UK-wide membership in 2002. Standardized data collection includes disease activity, function, radiological damage, therapy, hospitalizations, major comorbidity and mortality. A centralized database generates individual reports and comparative data for each centre yearly. Aims have been compared with actual achievements and any changes over 25 years. Results: Thirty rheumatology centres have recruited 2866 patients. Study outputs have included peer-reviewed scientific publications and contributions to the recent National Audit Office report on RA. Referral times into secondary care have changed little over 25 years, but time to initiation of drug therapies has decreased. Delays between publication of clinical trial evidence and management guidelines and their implementation in normal clinical practice are illustrated by relatively infrequent use of combination therapies at diagnosis. Consecutive case recruitment, centre participation and follow-up were reportedly compromised by local funding issues. Centre participants report a benefit from feedback of actual clinical practice compared with recommended standards of care. Conclusions: Most of the original objectives have been achieved. Cohort studies based predominantly in District General Hospitals provide unique insights into the natural history and impact of RA, its management, the translation of research findings into clinical practice and provide participating centres with important clinical governance and professional development opportunities.en_US
rioxxterms.funder.project94a427429a5bcfef7dd04c33360d80cden_US


Files in this item

Thumbnail
Name:
An evaluation of the strengths ...
Size:
202.0Kb
Format:
PDF

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record