FRI0071 ANALYSIS OF DATA GAPS IN RHEUMATOID ARTHRITIS

Background: Although ideally Recommendations for the management of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) should be supported by the highest level of evidence, many of which are based on “expert opinion”. This means that there are knowledge gaps to which a part of the research efforts in this disease should be directed. Objectives: 1.- Analyze the causes of the low level of evidence in some of the recommendations on diagnosis and management of RA in the main published documents 2.- Identify the knowledge gaps that justify said low level of evidence 3.- Design actions to respond to the knowledge gaps identified. Methods: Qualitative study. A group of six experts in systematic review of the literature was selected. Fourteen documents of national and international recommendations on RA (EULAR, ACR and SER) of the last 5 years were analyzed by a peer review. They selected recommendations with low level of evidence (Oxford 4 and 5) / grade of recommendation (C and D), and classified by areas (diagnosis, monitoring, treatment, others) and then possible causes of low level of evidence were analyzed. These were submitted to a Delphi to select the 10 recommendations in which participants considered it more critical to obtain quality evidence. Subsequently, actions were proposed to improve the levels of evidence in general and, through the PICOS structure (population, intervention, comparator, study design) specific studies were proposed to respond to the issues raised in these 10 recommendations Results: 185 recommendations were found that had a low level of evidence / grade of recommendation, most related to the treatment of RA. The two most frequent causes of this low level of evidence and / or the degree of recommendation were the absence of studies and an incorrect classification of the level of evidence and / or degree of recommendation. In addition, other reasons and methodological barriers were found for which nine critical recommendations were finally selected for which new PICOs were developed with which to propose targeted research projects Conclusion: It is necessary to improve the methodological approach in the RA recommendations guidelines to correct errors and fill gaps with appropriate studies. Disclosure of Interests: gloria candelas: None declared, Lucia Silva-Fernandez: None declared, Maria Montoro Employee of: Pfizer employee, Abad Hernandez: None declared, Jose Ramon Maneiro: None declared, Virginia Villaverde: None declared, Loreto Carmona Grant/research support from: Novartis Farmaceutica, SA, Pfizer, S.L.U., Merck Sharp \u0026 Dohme Espana, S.A., Roche Farma, S.A, Sanofi Aventis, AbbVie Spain, S.L.U., and Laboratorios Gebro Pharma, SA (All trhough institution), Estibaliz Loza Grant/research support from: Roche, Pfizer, Abbvie, MSD, Novartis, Gebro, Adacap, Astellas, BMS, Lylly, Sanofi, Eisai, Leo, Sobi, Susana Gomez Employee of: Pfizer employee, Monica Valderrama Consultant of: Pfizer employee, Ana Ortiz: None declared