Background: Rheumatoid arthritis (RA) is a systemic, chronic inflammatory autoimmune disease. RA is associated with pain, reduced muscle strength, functional limitations, and impaired physical performance. Regardless of pharmacological treatment, physiotherapy-based interventions such as exercise are recommended for all individuals with RA to improve body functions and reduce activity limitations. Resistance exercise is a commonly used component of physiotherapy-based management in RA; however, the quality of intervention reporting and methodological quality in randomized controlled trials remain unclear.

Objectives: To (i) evaluate the reporting quality of resistance exercise interventions in randomized controlled trials involving individuals with rheumatoid arthritis using the Consensus on Exercise Reporting Template (CERT), (ii) assess the methodological quality of the included trials using the PEDro scale, and (iii) determine the risk of bias using the Cochrane Risk of Bias 2 tool.

Methods: A systematic literature search was conducted on 8 January 2026 using the PubMed, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, and PEDro databases. Randomized controlled trials involving resistance exercise interventions in individuals with rheumatoid arthritis were included in this systematic review. The study was designed to evaluate the reporting quality and methodological quality of resistance exercise interventions applied in rheumatoid arthritis. From the included studies, data were systematically extracted on sample size and participant demographics, duration of resistance exercise interventions, comparator groups, outcome measures, and follow-up periods. The reporting quality of resistance exercise interventions was assessed using the Consensus on Exercise Reporting Template (CERT), methodological quality was evaluated with the PEDro scale, and risk of bias was determined using the Cochrane Risk of Bias 2 tool.

Results: A total of 13 randomized controlled trials including 998 participants were included in the analysis. The studies were published between 2017 and 2025, with a mean intervention duration of 14.5 ± 5.9 weeks, and the majority employed two-group study designs. Reporting quality of resistance exercise interventions, assessed using the CERT, yielded a mean CERT score of 12.0 ± 3.7, indicating moderate reporting quality. Methodological quality, evaluated using the PEDro scale, showed a mean PEDro score of 6.8 ± 1.2, reflecting overall moderate methodological quality. According to the Cochrane Risk of Bias 2 assessment, 61.5% (n = 8) of the studies were classified as low risk, 15.4% (n = 2) raised some concerns, and 23.1% (n = 3) were judged to have a high risk of bias. No statistically significant associations were found between reporting quality and publication year, sample size, number of intervention groups, or methodological quality (all p > 0.05). The association between sample size and PEDro score was close to the threshold for statistical significance (ρ = −0.539, p = 0.058). CERT scoring demonstrated high internal consistency (Cronbach’s α = 0.76) and significant inter-rater reliability (ICC = 0.77, p = 0.010). Regression analyses indicated that none of the examined variables had a statistically significant effect on CERT or PEDro scores (p > 0.05).

Conclusions: The findings of this study indicate that the reporting and methodological quality of randomized controlled trials investigating resistance exercise interventions in rheumatoid arthritis are generally moderate. No significant associations were observed between reporting or methodological quality and most study characteristics. These findings suggest a need for greater standardization in the reporting and methodological design of resistance exercise interventions in rheumatoid arthritis.

REFERENCES: NIL.

Acknowledgments: NIL.

Disclosure of Interests: None declared.