Search

Diversity is widely recognized as a driver of excellence and innovation. In recent years, women have become an increasingly significant part of the rheumatology workforce. We aimed to assess the gender representation of the leading rheumatology journals' editors and to explore whether editors' gender correlates with the gender of the first and last authors of published articles. We conducted a cross-sectional study and extracted editorial members of rheumatology journals in quartiles 1 to 3 (Clarivate Analytics) from each journal's website. We categorized editorial positions according to the level of influence in manuscript acceptance decision-making (levels I to III). The gender of editors and of the first and last authors in all 2019 original articles published in a sample of 15 rheumatology journals was assigned using a combination of digital gallery and manual searches. There were 2242 editors' names retrieved from 43 journals, 24 (26%) of the 94 editors at level I, 139 (36%) of 385 editors at level II, and 469 (27%) of 1763 at level III were female. The imbalance between journals was heterogeneous. Females were the first authors in 1342 (48%) and the last authors in 969 (35%) of the 2797 published articles. However, we found no significant correlation between editors' and authors' gender. Our data showed uneven gender representation on the editorial boards of most rheumatology journals, but we did not find any apparent vertical segregation or influence on publishing by gender. Our findings suggest that a generational transition may be occurring among authors., (© 2023. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature.)

Objective: To assess whether 16 of the Enhancing the Quality and Transparency of Health Research (EQUATOR) Network-related reporting guidelines were used in rheumatology publications., Methods: This was a cross-sectional study of research articles published in 5 high-performance rheumatology-focused journals in 2019. All articles were (1) manually reviewed to assess whether the use of a reporting guideline could be advisable, and (2) searched for the names and acronyms (eg, CONSORT [Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials], STROBE [Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology]) of 16 reporting guidelines. To calculate the "advisable use rate," the number of articles for which a guideline was used was divided by the number of articles for which the guideline was advised. Descriptive statistics were used., Results: We reviewed 895 manuscripts across the 5 journals. The use of a guideline was deemed advisable for 693 (77%) articles. Reporting guidelines were used in 50 articles, representing 5.6% of total articles and 7.2% (95% CI 5-9) of articles for which guidelines were advised. The advisable use rate boundaries within which a guideline was applied by the journals were 0.03 to 0.10 for any guideline, 0 to 0.26 for CONSORT, 0.01 to 0.07 for STROBE, 0 to 0.8 for Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA), and 0 to 0.14 for Animal Research: Reporting of In Vivo Experiments (ARRIVE). No identifiable trends in the variables studied were observed across the 5 journals., Conclusion: The limited use of reporting guidelines appears counterintuitive, considering that guidelines are promoted by journals and are intended to help authors report relevant information. Whether this finding is attributable to issues with the diffusion, awareness, acceptance, or perceived usefulness of the guidelines remains to be clarified., (Copyright © 2023 by the Journal of Rheumatology.)

Objectives: To assess the quality and performance of manuscripts previously rejected by a rheumatology-focused journal., Methods: This was a cross-sectional, audit-type, exploratory study of manuscripts submitted to Clinical Rheumatology (CLRH) and rejected by one associate editor in 2019. We used a 36-item quality assessment instrument (5-point ordinal scale, 1 being worst). Performance variables included whether a rejected manuscript was published in another PubMed-listed journal, impact factor of the publishing journal (Scimago), number of citations (Web of Science), and social media attention (Altmetrics). Exploratory variables included authors' past publications, use of reporting guidelines, and text structure. Exploratory variables were assessed using non-parametric tests., Results: In total, 165 manuscripts were rejected. Reporting guidelines were used in only five (4%) manuscripts. The mean overall quality rating was 2.48 ± 0.73, with 54% of manuscripts rated 2; 40-80% were rated < 3 on crucial items. Over a 26-month follow-up, 79 (48%) rejected manuscripts were published in other journals, mostly with lower impact factors; 70% of these had at least one citation, compared with 90.5% for manuscripts published in CLRH. Altmetrics was significantly lower for manuscripts published elsewhere than for those published in CLRH. As for text structure, the methods and results sections were shorter and the discussion longer than suggested. The corresponding authors' past experience and text structure were not associated with quality or acceptance., Conclusions: Research report quality is an area for improvement, mainly for items critical to explaining the research and findings. The use of reporting guidelines should be encouraged by journals. Key Points • The quality of research reports (in rejected manuscripts) is insufficient. • Guidelines for reporting are seldom used in rejected manuscripts. • A manuscript rejected by Clinical Rheumatology may subsequently be published in another journal with a lower impact factor and have fewer citations and less social media attention than accepted manuscripts., (© 2022. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to International League of Associations for Rheumatology (ILAR).)

Objectives: This is a demand-based infodemiology study using the Google Trends and AdWords tools to illustrate infodemiology's potential use in rheumatology. The study investigates three questions in North American countries: (1) What terms associated with "rheumatology" and "arthritis" do people search for on Google? (2) What is the search volume for disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs)? and (3) What is the search volume for the term "arthritis" compared with for "hepatitis C" and "breast cancer"?, Methods: We conducted independent searches by country and search term for 2015-2017. Seventeen DMARDs were searched for 2015 through May 2018, with the turmeric remedy included for comparison. Data were exported to Excel for further analysis, adjusted by country population, and expressed as searches per 100,000 inhabitants (SpTh)., Results: There were approximately 550 associated terms for "arthritis" in each country, and 5679 SpTh for DMARDs across the three countries. Searches for turmeric numbered slightly lower than for all DMARDs together in Canada and the USA, but were 70% higher in Mexico. Turmeric was also searched four times more than the most-searched biological DMARD in Canada and the USA, and 60 times more in Mexico. Arthritis was more commonly searched for in Canada than hepatitis C and breast cancer, but hepatitis C was highest in the USA and breast cancer in Mexico. Monthly trends did not show expected peaks associated with arthritis awareness campaigns., Conclusion: Infodemiology provides preliminary information that could help in generating hypotheses, assessing health-care interventions, or even in providing patient-centered care.

Objective: To assess trends in the length and readability of informed consent forms (ICFs) for industry-sponsored multinational clinical trials (RCTs) in rheumatology over a 17-year period. Additionally, to assess the health literacy (HL) and perceptions of ICFs among participants of current RCTs., Methods: The readability of ICFs conducted at an outpatient rheumatology clinic between 1999 and 2016 were assessed using the INFLESZ scale. Patients' HL was assessed using SALHSA-50 and STOFHLA. Patient opinions were assessed using a self-reported, in-office questionnaire with an independent patient sample who had signed an ICF in the past 6 months., Results: Thirty-nine ICFs about 22 drugs from 13 pharmaceutical companies were analyzed. The global mean readability was 57 ± 3 (95% CI: 56-58), and all ICFs were categorized as either "somewhat difficult to read" or "average." Readability remained at these levels without significant changes from 1999 to 2016. The mean length of the ICFs written between 1999 and 2005 was 13 ± 5 pages, with a significant increase thereafter (mean 22 ± 8 pages, p = 0.004). Depending on the instrument, of 95 patients participating in the HL assessment, between 18% and 44% had limited HL. Of 90 patients participating in the perceptions questionnaire, 84% reported understanding the ICF well. However, 2-57% misunderstood basic concepts, including the study drug name and placebo., Conclusions: The disparity between the readability of ICFs with patients' HL and their comprehension of ICFs continues, even after decades of attempts of regulatory agencies and numerous published suggestions., (Copyright © 2018 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

This study aims to explore the different connotations and potential offensiveness of ten mechanistic labels in newly referred Mexican patients with rheumatic symptoms as well as in Mexican and Canadian rheumatologists. Patients with musculoskeletal complaints newly referred for a rheumatology assessment were interviewed consecutively before they saw the rheumatologist. Patients were asked to choose one of nine feelings provoked by ten different illness mechanism labels. Rheumatologists gave a medical diagnosis after seeing the patients. Mexican and Canadian rheumatologists were invited to answer a structured questionnaire about their feelings at the moment they identified each of the ten different provided scenarios. Patients' and rheumatologists' feelings were classified as "offended" or "nonoffended." The "offensive score" was used to calculate a "number needed to offend" (NNO). One hundred and fifty patients were included. Inherited, immunological, and inflammatory labels had the fewest negative connotations (NNOs 17, 12, and 14, respectively), and psychological, functional, idiopathic, and sleep disturbance labels had the most (NNO 2 and 3, respectively). Functional labels were almost four times more offensive than organic labels. Stratified by rheumatologist diagnosis, patients with functional disorders were more accepting of organic-based mechanistic labels. A higher potential to offend was observed when patients with functional somatic conditions were given functional mechanistic labels (NNOs 1 to 4). The survey was completed by 186 Mexican rheumatologists and 71 Canadian rheumatologists. Primarily functional disorders such as somatization and anxiety had a high potential to evoke offensive feelings (NNOs 3 to 7). No significant differences in the NNO were found between Mexican and Canadian rheumatologists. Getting or giving mechanistic/explanatory labels is emotional. Both patients and rheumatologists experienced offended feelings with functional or idiopathic labels.

Rheumatologists frequently encounter patients whose illnesses lack face-value; that is, they lack the typical objective features of pathology that rheumatologists traditionally rely on for diagnosis and developing effective treatment approaches: namely fibromyalgia, chronic fatigue syndrome, Gulf War syndrome, chronic whiplash, chronic low back pain, etc. In this article, we examine this group of illnesses as culture-driven disorders to emphasize the central importance of various societal constraints in the ultimate presentation of patients with these illnesses. We will examine them by first understanding the purpose they serve, the underlying factors that compel societal institutions to sanctify these disorders as diseases, and how research is beginning to examine the behaviour that captures and packages these symptoms to produce their clinical presentation. With this research understanding, rheumatologists may be able to offer patients more useful action plans, but likely changes in societal approaches to the expressions of distress and changes in disability and compensation systems will also be required.

Copyright of Reumatología Clínica is the property of Elsevier B.V. and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

The aim of this study is to assess the trends in work disability and sick leave in ankylosing spondylitis (AS). In 1993 and 2007, patients diagnosed with AS that attended to a secondary- or a tertiary-care outpatient rheumatology clinics were evaluated for demographics, disease characteristics, axial mobility, working status, and work days missed due to sick leave or permanent disability. Factors that impacted labor status were identified by multiple regression analysis. In 1993, 91 study individuals (mean age 35 years, mean disease duration 10 ± 8 years) included 28 (31%) on permanent disability and 63 currently working; of these 63, 42 (67%) had missed at least 1 work day in the previous 12 months (mean 69 ± 63 days). In the next 5 years, the annual permanent disability was 3%. In 2007, 185 study individuals (mean age 42, mean disease duration 12 ± 10 years) included 53 (39%) on permanent disability and 132 active workers; 35 (66%) out of the 53 began permanent disability between 1999 and 2007 (2.1% annual disability rate), and 53 (40%) out of 132 active workers missed at least 1 work day in the previous 12 months (mean 52 ± 63 days). Only age predicted disability, with 10% and 11% increases in risk per year in 1993 and 2007, respectively (hazard ratios 1.09 and 1.11, respectively; p = 0.03 for both). Although the impact of AS on work seems to decrease slightly during the last 15 years, the actual impact is still substantial. An important proportion of patients went on permanent disability in the three decades before retirement. Extrapolating these results to official data for the year 2005, we may infer that between 1.3 million and nearly 15 million working days were missed that year due to AS. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]