Skip to main content
. 2022 Mar 11;119(10):157–164. doi: 10.3238/arztebl.m2022.0109

Table 3. Analysis of the secondary endpoints.

Change after one year*1
per group
Group comparison
Endpoint Team-based
form of care
Standard
care
Team based − Standard
Observed
mean value (SD)
Observed
mean value (SD)
Estimated difference
[95% confidence interval]*2
Direction
CRP (mg/L)*3 0.0(−1.1–1.2) 0.0(−1.5–1.4) 0.0[−0.1; 0.2]
Disease activity (NRS) −0.2 (2.2) −0.1 (2.5) −0.1 [−0.5; 0.2]
Pain intensity (NRS) −0.1 (2.4) 0.1 (2.2) −0.2 [−0.6; 0.1]
Fatigue(NRS) −0.2 (2.3) 0.0 (2.5) −0.2 [−0.5; 0.2]
Sleep disturbances (NRS) −0.2 (2.6) −0.0 (2.8) −0.3 [−0.7; 0.1]
Duration of morning stiffness (minutes) 2.6 (30.3) 1.4 (29.1) 0.5 [−4.1; 5.2]
Depression(PHQ-2) −0.1 (1.5) 0.0 (1.5) −0.1 [−0.3; 0.1]
Functional capacity (FFbH) −2.0 (15.9) −1.7 (13.0) −0.1 [−2.9; 2.8]
Physical activity (PRISCUS-PAQ) −0.2(11.4) −1.2 (10.2) 1.6 [−0.2; 3.4]

*1 final value- initial value

*2 estimated using a linear mixed models in the intention-to-treat population for each endpoint with adjustment for patient age and sex, respective baseline value, and respective center (random effect)

*3 given the skewness of the distribution, median and interquartile range (Q25–Q75) of the changes are presented, and the model is calculated with log CRP.

CRP, C-reactive protein; FFbH, Hanover Functional Status Questionnaire (0–100); NRS, numeric rating scale (0–10);

PAQ, Physical Activity Questionnaire (≥ 168 MET hour/week [MET, metabolic equivalent]); PHQ-2, Patient Health Questionnaire 2 Items (0–6);

↑ indicates advantage of the team-based model of care, ↓ indicates advantage of standard care