Background: Rheumatoid arthritis (RA) has a considerable negative impact on quality of life (QoL) and represents a significant burden on healthcare systems worldwide. Although patient education (PE) programs are advocated as an integral component of comprehensive RA management, the magnitude and sustainability of their QoL benefits remain unclear. This meta-analysis seeks to assess the efficacy of PE interventions in enhancing QoL among RA patients. Methods: A comprehensive review of studies from 1985 to 2022 was conducted, incorporating 66 publications (59 randomized controlled trials and 7 non-randomized controlled trials) with a total of 9622 participants. Studies were selected based on predefined inclusion criteria, focusing on adults diagnosed with RA who participated in PE interventions compared to conventional or no interventions. Data were analyzed using fixed-effect and random-effects models, depending on the heterogeneity among studies. Results were reported separately for the initial follow-up and for the final follow-up. Findings: PE interventions demonstrated a positive impact on QoL. Following the intervention, there is a significant improvement in QoL (SMD = 0·13, 95% CI: 0·08 to 0·17, I² = 43%), with the highest efficacy observed at 7–12 weeks. Modern-era publications and randomized controlled trials offer more consistent results. Subgroups with higher female representation (>85%) and combined intervention approaches show more substantial effects. In the final assessments, QoL improvements are noteworthy, especially within the 0–6 weeks post-intervention period (SMD = 0·39, 95% CI: 0·13 to 0·66, I² = 84%). Younger adults (≤50 years) benefit the most, while longer program durations (>52 weeks) exhibit significant but varied effects. Interpretation: This meta-analysis underscores the positive effect of PE interventions on QoL among RA patients, highlighting the importance of tailored approaches considering various contextual factors. Standardizing intervention protocols and optimizing delivery methods are recommended to enhance the sustained impact of PE programs in RA management.
OBJECTIVE: To determine the impact of occupational therapy (OT) on the self-management of function, pain, fatigue, and lived experience for people living with rheumatoid arthritis (RA).
METHODS: Five databases and gray literature were searched up to June 30, 2022. Three reviewers screened titles and abstracts, with two independently extracting and assessing full texts using the Cochrane risk of bias (quantitative) and Critical Appraisal Skills Programme (qualitative) tools to assess study quality. Studies were categorized into four intervention types. Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations (GRADE) (quantitative) and GRADE- Confidence in Evidence from Reviews of Qualitative research (qualitative) were used to assess the quality of evidence for each intervention type.
RESULTS: Of 39 eligible papers, 29 were quantitative (n = 2,029), 4 qualitative (n = 50), and 6 mixed methods (n = 896). Good evidence supports patient education and behavior change programs for improving pain and function, particularly group sessions of joint protection education, but these do not translate to long-term improvements for RA (>24 months). Comprehensive OT had mixed evidence (limited to home OT and an arthritis gloves program), whereas limited evidence was available for qualitative insights, splints and assistive devices, and self-management for fatigue.
CONCLUSION: Although patient education is promising for self-managing RA, no strong evidence was found to support OT programs for self-managing fatigue or patient experience and long-term effectiveness. More research is required on lived experience, and the long-term efficacy of self-management approaches incorporating OT, particularly timing programs to meet the individual's conditional needs (i.e., early or established RA) to build on the few studies to date.
OBJECTIVE: To identify the best evidence on the efficacy of non-pharmacological interventions in reducing fatigue in people with inflammatory rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases (I-RMDs) and to summarise their safety in the identified studies to inform European Alliance of Associations for Rheumatology recommendations for the management of fatigue in people with I-RMDs.
METHODS: Systematic review of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) including adults with I-RMDs conducted according to the Cochrane Handbook. Search strategy ran in Medline, Embase, Cochrane Library, CINAHL Complete, PEDro, OTseeker and PsycINFO. Assessment of risk of bias, data extraction and synthesis were performed by two reviewers independently. Data were pooled in meta-analyses.
RESULTS: From a total of 4150 records, 454 were selected for full-text review, 82 fulfilled the inclusion criteria and 55 RCTs were included in meta-analyses. Physical activity or exercise was efficacious in reducing fatigue in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) (standardised mean differences (SMD)=-0.23, 95% CI=-0.37 to -0.1), systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) (SMD=-0.54, 95% CI=-1.07 to -0.01) and spondyloarthritis (SMD=-0.94, 95% CI=-1.23 to -0.66); reduction of fatigue was not significant in Sjögren's syndrome (SMD=-0.83, 95% CI=-2.13 to 0.47) and systemic sclerosis (SMD=-0.66, 95% CI=-1.33 to 0.02). Psychoeducational interventions were efficacious in reducing fatigue in RA (SMD=-0.32, 95% CI=-0.48 to -0.16), but not in SLE (SMD=-0.19, 95% CI=-0.46 to 0.09). Follow-up models in consultations (SMD=-0.05, 95% CI=-0.29 to 0.20) and multicomponent interventions (SMD=-0.20, 95% CI=-0.53 to 0.14) did not show significant reductions of fatigue in RA. The results of RCTs not included in the meta-analysis suggest that several other non-pharmacological interventions may provide a reduction of fatigue, with reassuring safety results.
CONCLUSIONS: Physica activity or exercise and psychoeducational interventions are efficacious and safe for managing fatigue in people with I-RMDs.
Background: Rheumatoid arthritis (RA) is a chronic, systemic, inflammatory autoimmune disease that results in the destruction of joints, connective tissues, muscle, tendons and fibrous tissue. Until now, there are no cure therapies. Objective: We aimed to assess the effectiveness of Tai Chi (TC) on RA patients by meta-analysis. Methods: The PubMed, Cochrane Library, EMBASE, web of science, China National Knowledge Infrastructure and Google Scholar were searched up to January 2023. We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) or controlled clinical trials (CCTs) comparing TC to control conditions for RA patients. Review Manager (Version 5.3) software was used to analyze outcomes of time to walk 50 feet, joint tenderness, number of swollen joints or tender joints, handgrip strength, pain, the Health Assessment Questionnaire (HAQ) and withdraws overall. Results: A total of 351 patients with RA from six RCTs and three CCTs were included for meta-analysis. TC could also significantly decrease withdrawals overall in studies (OR = 0.28, 95% CI 0.12 to 0.67, p = 0.002). No significant treatment effects of physical function were identified of the other outcomes. Conclusion: Our findings indicated that TC was safe to RA patients, but it cannot improve physical function and pain. However, there is still lack of more evidence. Systematic Review Registration: [https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/display_record.php?RecordID=367498], identifier [CRD42022367498].
BACKGROUND: Rheumatoid arthritis (RA) is a common systemic inflammatory autoimmune disease. The disease has a serious impact on mental health and requires more effective non-pharmacological interventions.
OBJECTIVE: This study aims to systematically evaluate the effectiveness of patient education on psychological status and clinical outcomes in rheumatoid arthritis.
METHODS: This systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted based on the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. PubMed, Cochrane Library, EMBASE database, and Web of Science database were screened for articles published until November 2, 2021. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of patient education for RA were included. Outcomes measures included pain, physical function, disease activity, erythrocyte sedimentation rate (ESR), C-reactive protein (CRP), anxiety, depression, Arthritis Self-Efficacy (pain, other symptoms, total), and General health. For each outcome, standardized mean differences or mean differences and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated.
RESULTS: A total of 24 RCTs (n = 2,276) were included according to the inclusion and exclusion criteria. Meta-analysis revealed a statistically significant overall effect in favor of patient education for physical function [SMD = -0.52, 95% CI (-0.96, -0.08), I 2 = 93%, P = 0.02], disease activity [SMD = -1.97, 95% CI (-3.24, -0.71), I 2 = 97%, P = 0.002], ASE (pain) [SMD = -1.24, 95% CI (-2.05, -0.43), I 2 = 95%, P = 0.003], ASE (other symptoms) [SMD = -0.25, 95% CI (-0.41, -0.09), I 2 = 25%, P = 0.002], ASE (total) [SMD = -0.67, 95% CI (-1.30, -0.05), I 2 = 90%, P = 0.03], and general health [SMD = -1.11, 95% CI (-1.36, -0.86), I 2 = 96%, P < 0.00001]. No effects were found for anxiety [SMD = 0.17, 95% CI (-0.64, 0.98), I 2 = 82%, P = 0.68], depression [SMD = -0.18, 95% CI (-0.52, 0.15), I 2 = 52%, P = 0.28], pain [SMD = -0.37, 95% CI (-0.80, 0.05), I 2 = 89%, P = 0.08], and CRP [SMD = -0.27, 95% CI (-0.57, 0.02), I 2 = 0%, P = 0.07].
CONCLUSIONS: Patient education may be effective in improving clinical outcomes and psychological status in patients with rheumatoid arthritis. Considering the methodological limitations of the included RCTs, more high-quality and large-sample RCTs are needed to confirm this conclusion in the future.
SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: http://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero, identifier: CRD42021250607.
OBJECTIVES: Mind-body therapies (MBTs), including meditation, yoga, and mindfulness, create an interaction between the mind and body to enhance health. MBTs are perceived by both patients and healthcare professionals as valuable in the management of rheumatoid arthritis (RA), but the extent of this contribution is unclear, as are the patient subgroups who benefit most from MBTs. Therefore, this systematic literature review investigates the effects of meditation, mindfulness, and yoga in patients with RA.
METHODS: We searched four databases (PubMed, Embase, Web of Science (core collection, Chinese and Korean collection), and CINAHL). All studies were screened by two independent reviewers via the title/abstract/full text. The studies included any form of meditation/mindfulness/yoga as an intervention for RA. Animal studies, case reports, non-English articles, qualitative studies, conference abstracts, and articles without full-text access were excluded. Each study was assessed for its quality.
RESULTS: Out of 1527 potentially eligible records, 23 studies were included. All three MBTs showed various effects on patient-reported outcomes, such as vitality, functioning, and mental health, as well as on disease activity markers. Mindfulness-based interventions mainly reduced the subjective disease activity parameters (e.g., joint tenderness, morning stiffness, and pain), rather than the objective disease activity parameters (e.g., swollen joints and C-reactive protein (CRP)). RA patients with recurrent depression may benefit more from these non-pharmacological therapies than patients without recurrent depression.
DISCUSSION: This systematic literature review found that MBTs show added value in RA management, especially for patients with depressive symptoms. These non-pharmacological approaches, when used in addition to medication, might diminish polypharmacy in specific RA patient populations. Lay Summary: In recent decades, more attention has been given to the management of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) with options other than solely using medication. Such alternative options for patients to increase their quality of life are, for instance, meditation, yoga, and mindfulness. These examples of mind-body therapies (MBTs) are techniques that create an interaction between the mind and the bodily functions in order to obtain relaxation and enhance overall health. Although it is believed that these mind-body techniques are valuable in the management of RA, the extent of their contribution is still unclear, as is the question of if certain subgroups of patients benefit more from these complementary therapies. This systematic literature review investigated the effects of meditation, mindfulness, and yoga in patients with rheumatoid arthritis. A literature search was systematically performed within four different scientific databases by two independent reviewers. Out of 1527 potentially eligible articles, 23 studies were included. All three MBTs showed beneficial effects, which were mostly on the vitality, functioning, and mental health of patients with RA, but also on symptoms related to disease activity. RA patients with recurrent depression seemed to benefit more from these non-pharmacological therapies than patients without recurrent depression. Hence, we can conclude that MBTs show added value in the management of RA.
This study aimed to assess the effects of cognitive behavioral therapy on the psychological and physiological health of rheumatoid arthritis patients. An extensive literature search was conducted, using the PubMed, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, Embase, CNKI Scholar, WanFang, and VIP databases, from inception to December2018. The quality of the studies was evaluated by 2 independent authors, according to the basic criteria provided by the Cochrane Handbook for evaluating randomized trials. Meta-analysis was performed with Review Manager 5.3. Six randomized controlled trials met the inclusion criteria of the current study. Using standard mean differences (SMD) and 95% confidence intervals (CI), our results showed that cognitive behavioral therapy could significantly reduce levels of anxiety (SMD = -0.30, 95% CI [-0.52, -0.09], P= 0.005) and depression (SMD = -0.48, 95% CI [-0.70, -0.27], P< 0.00001), and relieve fatigue symptoms (SMD = -0.35, 95% CI [-0.60, -0.10], P= 0.006) in rheumatoid arthritis patients.This is the first known assessment of the efficacy of cognitive behavioral therapy on rheumatoid arthritis patients using meta-analysis. Large-scale randomized controlled trials need to be implemented to further explore this issue.
BACKGROUND: Chronic non-cancer pain, a disabling and distressing condition, is common in adults. It is a global public health problem and economic burden on health and social care systems and on people with chronic pain. Psychological treatments aim to reduce pain, disability and distress. This review updates and extends its previous version, published in 2012.
OBJECTIVES: To determine the clinical efficacy and safety of psychological interventions for chronic pain in adults (age > 18 years) compared with active controls, or waiting list/treatment as usual (TAU).
SEARCH METHODS: We identified randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of psychological therapies by searching CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase and PsycINFO to 16 April 2020. We also examined reference lists and trial registries, and searched for studies citing retrieved trials.
SELECTION CRITERIA: RCTs of psychological treatments compared with active control or TAU of face-to-face therapies for adults with chronic pain. We excluded studies of headache or malignant disease, and those with fewer than 20 participants in any arm at treatment end.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two or more authors rated risk of bias, extracted data, and judged quality of evidence (GRADE). We compared cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT), behavioural therapy (BT), and acceptance and commitment therapy (ACT) with active control or TAU at treatment end, and at six month to 12 month follow-up. We did not analyse the few trials of other psychological treatments. We assessed treatment effectiveness for pain intensity, disability, and distress. We extracted data on adverse events (AEs) associated with treatment.
MAIN RESULTS: We added 41 studies (6255 participants) to 34 of the previous review's 42 studies, and now have 75 studies in total (9401 participants at treatment end). Most participants had fibromyalgia, chronic low back pain, rheumatoid arthritis, or mixed chronic pain. Most risk of bias domains were at high or unclear risk of bias, with selective reporting and treatment expectations mostly at unclear risk of bias. AEs were inadequately recorded and/or reported across studies. CBT The largest evidence base was for CBT (59 studies). CBT versus active control showed very small benefit at treatment end for pain (standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.09, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.17 to -0.01; 3235 participants; 23 studies; moderate-quality evidence), disability (SMD -0.12, 95% CI -0.20 to -0.04; 2543 participants; 19 studies; moderate-quality evidence), and distress (SMD -0.09, 95% CI -0.18 to -0.00; 3297 participants; 24 studies; moderate-quality evidence). We found small benefits for CBT over TAU at treatment end for pain (SMD -0.22, 95% CI -0.33 to -0.10; 2572 participants; 29 studies; moderate-quality evidence), disability (SMD -0.32, 95% CI -0.45 to -0.19; 2524 participants; 28 studies; low-quality evidence), and distress (SMD -0.34, 95% CI -0.44 to -0.24; 2559 participants; 27 studies; moderate-quality evidence). Effects were largely maintained at follow-up for CBT versus TAU, but not for CBT versus active control. Evidence quality for CBT outcomes ranged from moderate to low. We rated evidence for AEs as very low quality for both comparisons. BT We analysed eight studies (647 participants). We found no evidence of difference between BT and active control at treatment end (pain SMD -0.67, 95% CI -2.54 to 1.20, very low-quality evidence; disability SMD -0.65, 95% CI -1.85 to 0.54, very low-quality evidence; or distress SMD -0.73, 95% CI -1.47 to 0.01, very low-quality evidence). At follow-up, effects were similar. We found no evidence of difference between BT and TAU (pain SMD -0.08, 95% CI -0.33 to 0.17, low-quality evidence; disability SMD -0.02, 95% CI -0.24 to 0.19, moderate-quality evidence; distress SMD 0.22, 95% CI -0.10 to 0.54, low-quality evidence) at treatment end. At follow-up, we found one to three studies with no evidence of difference between BT and TAU. We rated evidence for all BT versus active control outcomes as very low quality; for BT versus TAU. Evidence quality ranged from moderate to very low. We rated evidence for AEs as very low quality for BT versus active control. No studies of BT versus TAU reported AEs. ACT We analysed five studies (443 participants). There was no evidence of difference between ACT and active control for pain (SMD -0.54, 95% CI -1.20 to 0.11, very low-quality evidence), disability (SMD -1.51, 95% CI -3.05 to 0.03, very low-quality evidence) or distress (SMD -0.61, 95% CI -1.30 to 0.07, very low-quality evidence) at treatment end. At follow-up, there was no evidence of effect for pain or distress (both very low-quality evidence), but two studies showed a large benefit for reducing disability (SMD -2.56, 95% CI -4.22 to -0.89, very low-quality evidence). Two studies compared ACT to TAU at treatment end. Results should be interpreted with caution. We found large benefits of ACT for pain (SMD -0.83, 95% CI -1.57 to -0.09, very low-quality evidence), but none for disability (SMD -1.39, 95% CI -3.20 to 0.41, very low-quality evidence), or distress (SMD -1.16, 95% CI -2.51 to 0.20, very low-quality evidence). Lack of data precluded analysis at follow-up. We rated evidence quality for AEs to be very low. We encourage caution when interpreting very low-quality evidence because the estimates are uncertain and could be easily overturned.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We found sufficient evidence across a large evidence base (59 studies, over 5000 participants) that CBT has small or very small beneficial effects for reducing pain, disability, and distress in chronic pain, but we found insufficient evidence to assess AEs. Quality of evidence for CBT was mostly moderate, except for disability, which we rated as low quality. Further trials may provide more precise estimates of treatment effects, but to inform improvements, research should explore sources of variation in treatment effects. Evidence from trials of BT and ACT was of moderate to very low quality, so we are very uncertain about benefits or lack of benefits of these treatments for adults with chronic pain; other treatments were not analysed. These conclusions are similar to our 2012 review, apart from the separate analysis of ACT.
BACKGROUND: Rheumatoid arthritis (RA) is a chronic, systemic, inflammatory, autoimmune disease that results in joint deformity and immobility of the musculoskeletal system. The major goals of treatment are to relieve pain, reduce inflammation, slow down or stop joint damage, prevent disability, and preserve or improve the person's sense of well-being and ability to function. Tai Chi, interchangeably known as Tai Chi Chuan, is an ancient Chinese health-promoting martial art form that has been recognized in China as an effective arthritis therapy for centuries. This is an update of a review published in 2004.
OBJECTIVES: To assess the benefits and harms of Tai Chi as a treatment for people with rheumatoid arthritis (RA).
SEARCH METHODS: We updated the search of CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, and clinical trial registries from 2002 to September 2018.
SELECTION CRITERIA: We selected randomized controlled trials and controlled clinical trials examining the benefits (ACR improvement criteria or pain, disease progression, function, and radiographic progression), and harms (adverse events and withdrawals) of exercise programs with Tai Chi instruction or incorporating principles of Tai Chi philosophy. We included studies of any duration that included control groups who received either no therapy or alternate therapy.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane.
MAIN RESULTS: Adding three studies (156 additional participants) to the original review, this update contains a total of seven trials with 345 participants. Participants were mostly women with RA, ranging in age from 16 to 80 years, who were treated in outpatient settings in China, South Korea, and the USA. The majority of the trials were at high risk of bias for performance and detection bias, due to the lack of blinding of participants or assessors. Almost 75% of the studies did not report random sequence generation, and we judged the risk of bias as unclear for allocation concealment in the majority of studies. The duration of the Tai Chi programs ranged from 8 to 12 weeks.It is uncertain whether Tai Chi-based exercise programs provide a clinically important improvement in pain among Tai Chi participants compared to no therapy or alternate therapy. The change in mean pain in control groups, measured on visual analog scale (VAS 0 to 10 score, reduced score means less pain) ranged from a decrease of 0.51 to an increase of 1.6 at 12 weeks; in the Tai Chi groups, pain was reduced by a mean difference (MD) of -2.15 (95% confidence interval (CI) -3.19 to -1.11); 22% absolute improvement (95% CI, 11% to 32% improvement); 2 studies, 81 participants; very low-quality evidence, downgraded for imprecision, blinding and attrition bias.There was very low-quality evidence, downgraded for, blinding, and attrition, that was inconclusive for an important difference in disease activity, measured using Disease Activity Scale (DAS-28-ESR) scores (0 to 10 scale, lower score means less disease activity), with no change in the control group and 0.40 reduction (95% CI -1.10 to 0.30) with Tai Chi; 4% absolute improvement (95% CI 11% improvement to 3% worsening); 1 study, 43 participants.For the assessment of function, the change in mean Health Assessment Questionnaire (HAQ; 0 to 3 scale, lower score means better function) ranged from 0 to 0.1 in the control group, and reduced by MD 0.33 in the Tai Chi group (95% CI -0.79 to 0.12); 11% absolute improvement (95% CI 26% improvement to 4% worsening); 2 studies, 63 participants; very low-quality evidence, downgraded for imprecision, blinding, and attrition. We are unsure of an important improvement, as the results were inconclusive.Participants in Tai Chi programs were less likely than those in a control group to withdraw from studies at 8 to 12 weeks (19/180 in intervention groups versus 49/165 in control groups; risk ratio (RR) 0.40 (95% CI 0.19 to 0.86); absolute difference 17% fewer (95% CI 30% fewer to 3% fewer); 7 studies, 289 participants; low-quality evidence, downgraded for imprecision and blinding.There were no data available for radiographic progression. Short-term adverse events were not reported by group, but in two studies there was some narrative description of joint and muscle soreness and cramps; long-term adverse events were not reported.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: It is uncertain whether Tai Chi has any effect on clinical outcomes (joint pain, activity limitation, function) in RA, and important effects cannot be confirmed or excluded, since all outcomes had very low-quality evidence. Withdrawals from study were greater in the control groups than the Tai Chi groups, based on low-quality evidence. Although the incidence of adverse events is likely to be low with Tai Chi, we are uncertain, as studies failed to explicitly report such events. Few minor adverse events (joint and muscle soreness and cramps) were described qualitatively in the narrative of two of the studies. This updated review provides minimal change in the conclusions from the previous review, i.e. a pain outcome.
STUDY DESIGN: Systematic review with meta-analysis.
INTRODUCTION: Joint protection (JP) has been developed as a self-management intervention to assist people with hand arthritis to improve occupational performance and minimize joint deterioration over time.
PURPOSE OF THE STUDY: We examined the effectiveness between JP and usual care/control on pain, hand function, and grip strength levels for people with hand osteoarthritis and rheumatoid arthritis.
METHODS: A search was performed in 5 databases from January 1990 to February 2017. Two independent assessors applied Cochrane's risk of bias tool, and a Grading of Recommendations Assessement, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach was adopted.
RESULTS: For pain levels at short term, we found similar effects between JP and control standardized mean difference (SMD; -0.00, 95% confidence interval [CI]: -0.42 to 0.42, I2 = 49%), and at midterm and long-term follow-up, JP was favored over usual care SMD (-0.32, 95% CI: -0.53 to -0.11, I2 = 0) and SMD (-0.27, 95% CI: -0.41 to -0.12, I2 = 9%), respectively. For function levels at midterm and long-term follow-up, JP was favored over usual care SMD (-0.49, 95% CI: -0.75 to -0.22, I2 = 34%) and SMD (-0.31, 95% CI: -0.50 to -0.11, I2 = 56%), respectively. For grip strength levels, at long term, JP was inferior over usual care mean difference (0.93, 95% CI: -0.74 to 2.61, I2 = 0%).
CONCLUSIONS: Evidence of very low to low quality indicates that the effects of JP programs compared with usual care/control on pain and hand function are too small to be clinically important at short-, intermediate-, and long-term follow-ups for people with hand arthritis.
Background: Rheumatoid arthritis (RA) has a considerable negative impact on quality of life (QoL) and represents a significant burden on healthcare systems worldwide. Although patient education (PE) programs are advocated as an integral component of comprehensive RA management, the magnitude and sustainability of their QoL benefits remain unclear. This meta-analysis seeks to assess the efficacy of PE interventions in enhancing QoL among RA patients. Methods: A comprehensive review of studies from 1985 to 2022 was conducted, incorporating 66 publications (59 randomized controlled trials and 7 non-randomized controlled trials) with a total of 9622 participants. Studies were selected based on predefined inclusion criteria, focusing on adults diagnosed with RA who participated in PE interventions compared to conventional or no interventions. Data were analyzed using fixed-effect and random-effects models, depending on the heterogeneity among studies. Results were reported separately for the initial follow-up and for the final follow-up. Findings: PE interventions demonstrated a positive impact on QoL. Following the intervention, there is a significant improvement in QoL (SMD = 0·13, 95% CI.: 0·08 to 0·17, I² = 43%), with the highest efficacy observed at 7–12 weeks. Modern-era publications and randomized controlled trials offer more consistent results. Subgroups with higher female representation (>85%) and combined intervention approaches show more substantial effects. In the final assessments, QoL improvements are noteworthy, especially within the 0–6 weeks post-intervention period (SMD = 0·39, 95% CI.: 0·13 to 0·66, I² = 84%). Younger adults (≤50 years) benefit the most, while longer program durations (>52 weeks) exhibit significant but varied effects. Interpretation: This meta-analysis underscores the positive effect of PE interventions on QoL among RA patients, highlighting the importance of tailored approaches considering various contextual factors. Standardizing intervention protocols and optimizing delivery methods are recommended to enhance the sustained impact of PE programs in RA management.
