You are here

  • Home
  • Archive
  • Volume 82, Issue 4
  • Response to ‘Correspondence on ‘Mining social media data to investigate patient perceptions regarding DMARD pharmacotherapy for rheumatoid arthritis’’ by Reuter et al

Article Text

Article menu
Download PDFPDF
Correspondence response
Response to ‘Correspondence on ‘Mining social media data to investigate patient perceptions regarding DMARD pharmacotherapy for rheumatoid arthritis’’ by Reuter et al
  1. Chanakya Sharma1,
  2. Samuel Whittle2,
  3. Pari Delir Haghighi3,
  4. Frada Burstein3,
  5. Helen Isobel Keen4
  1. 1 Rheumatology, Fiona Stanley Hospital, Murdoch, Western Australia, Australia
  2. 2 Rheumatology, The Queen Elizabeth Hospital, Woodville South, South Australia, Australia
  3. 3 Information Technology, Monash University, Clayton, Victoria, Australia
  4. 4 Medicine and Pharmacology, UWA, Murdoch, Western Australia, Australia
  1. Correspondence to Dr Chanakya Sharma, Fiona Stanley Hospital, Murdoch, Western Australia, Australia; chanakya_s{at}hotmail.com

http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/annrheumdis-2020-219815

Statistics from Altmetric.com

    Request Permissions

    If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.

    We would like to thank Reuter et al for their interest in our study and the constructive spirit in which their comments were offered.1 ,2 We agree with their concerns about inferring causality, which we have not done. Our study was designed to help provide coherence to the plethora of online discussions about disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) but was not intended to imply causality. We also agree with their concerns regarding the veracity of the data collected from social media …

    View Full Text

    Footnotes

    • Handling editor Josef S Smolen

    • Contributors CS wrote the response which was reviewed and amended by all the coauthors.

    • Funding The authors have not declared a specific grant for this research from any funding agency in the public, commercial or not-for-profit sectors.

    • Competing interests None declared.

    • Patient and public involvement Patients and/or the public were not involved in the design, or conduct, or reporting, or dissemination plans of this research.

    • Provenance and peer review Commissioned; internally peer reviewed.

    Linked Articles