TY - JOUR T1 - Should contemporary rheumatoid arthritis clinical trials be more like standard patient care and vice versa? JF - Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases JO - Ann Rheum Dis SP - ii32 LP - ii39 DO - 10.1136/ard.2004.028415 VL - 63 IS - suppl 2 AU - T Pincus AU - T Sokka Y1 - 2004/11/01 UR - http://ard.bmj.com/content/63/suppl_2/ii32.abstract N2 - The information used by rheumatologists when delivering care to patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) is derived mainly from two sources: randomised controlled clinical trials and experience in clinical care. However, these two sources differ significantly because (a) the extensive inclusion and exclusion criteria result in clinical trial participants being recruited from only a minority of patients seen in standard clinical care; (b) assessments in clinical trials are conducted according to standard quantitative measures and indices, while standard clinical care of most patients with RA is generally conducted empirically, without collection of any quantitative data other than laboratory tests to estimate prognosis and document change in status; and (c) although baseline databases of various clinical trials (and observational studies) are 60–90% identical in content, they are not standardised and therefore not amenable to direct comparisons. Strategies to promote similarities between clinical trials and standard clinical care in patients with RA may include: more generalised inclusion criteria; incorporation of quantitative measurement into standard care, easily accomplished by asking each patient to complete a simple questionnaire at each visit to a rheumatologist; and consensus among rheumatologists for databases with standard content and format in clinical care and research involving patients with RA. ER -