uncertain of the long term outcomes for patients receiving treatment. 9 What difference do you think there could be in the Expert 1 did not believe that additional benefit number of patients who have cardiovascular, to damage would be observed. Expert 2 was neuropsychiatric, or gastrointestinal damage after 5 uncertain about the effect of treatment. Expert years of biologic treatment compared with the natural 3 expected large reductions in organ damage, history predictions. but expressed uncertainty in the magnitude. Expert 4 was very uncertain of the long term In this question reductions in damage risk due to lower outcomes for patients receiving treatment. disease activity scores and steroid dose have been adjusted for. 10 What difference do you think there could be in the Expert 1 did not believe that additional benefit number of patients who have renal, pulmonary or to damage would be observed. Expert 2 vascular damage after 5 years of biologic treatment believed that fewer patients would develop compared with the natural history predictions. disease activity related damage. Expert 3 expected improvements in disease activity In this question reductions in damage risk due to lower related organ damage. Expert 4 was uncertain disease activity scores and steroid dose have been of the effect of treatment on damage. adjusted for. 11 What difference do you think there could be in the Expert 1 believed that additional benefit to number of patients who have musculoskeletal damage, damage caused by steroids would be observed. ocular damage or diabetes after 5 years of biologic Expert 2 believed that treatment was less likely treatment compared with the natural history predictions. to improve outcomes than the predictions. Expert 3 was very uncertain of the effects of In this question reductions in damage risk due to lower treatment on steroid related damage. Expert 4
uncertain of the long term outcomes for patients receiving treatment. 9 What difference do you think there could be in the number of patients who have cardiovascular, neuropsychiatric, or gastrointestinal damage after 5 years of biologic treatment compared with the natural history predictions. In this question reductions in damage risk due to lower disease activity scores and steroid dose have been adjusted for. Expert 1 did not believe that additional benefit to damage would be observed. Expert 2 was uncertain about the effect of treatment. Expert 3 expected large reductions in organ damage, but expressed uncertainty in the magnitude. Expert 4 was very uncertain of the long term outcomes for patients receiving treatment. 10 What difference do you think there could be in the number of patients who have renal, pulmonary or vascular damage after 5 years of biologic treatment compared with the natural history predictions. In this question reductions in damage risk due to lower disease activity scores and steroid dose have been adjusted for. Expert 1 did not believe that additional benefit to damage would be observed. Expert 2 believed that fewer patients would develop disease activity related damage. Expert 3 expected improvements in disease activity related organ damage. Expert 4 was uncertain of the effect of treatment on damage. 11 What difference do you think there could be in the number of patients who have musculoskeletal damage, ocular damage or diabetes after 5 years of biologic treatment compared with the natural history predictions. In this question reductions in damage risk due to lower Expert 1 believed that additional benefit to damage caused by steroids would be observed. Expert 2 believed that treatment was less likely to improve outcomes than the predictions. Expert 3 was very uncertain of the effects of treatment on steroid related damage. Expert 4
Final%20Thesis%20with%20Corrections.docx