Vinod Ravindran

Background: The management of reproductive health in individuals with autoimmune rheumatic diseases (AIRDs) has evolved into a primary clinical priority. Wide variations in clinical practice and drug availability in the Asia‐Pacific regions necessitate localized frameworks. These consensus statements, developed by the Asia Pacific League of Associations for Rheumatology (APLAR) Special Interest Group for Women's Health & Reproductive Issues in Rheumatic and Musculoskeletal Diseases, aim to bridge the gaps within the region, foster multidisciplinary collaboration, and address regional knowledge deficits. Methods: An expert panel comprising 16 members of the 13 APLAR member nation organizations formulated 23 research questions using the PICO framework. A systematic review of English‐language literature up to July 2025 was conducted across the MEDLINE, Scopus, Google Scholar, and Cochrane Library databases, supplemented by a manual search of journals from the APLAR regions. Evidence from the APLAR region was appraised using the GRADE system. A modified Delphi online voting process was employed to reach consensus, pre‐defined as ≥ 75% agreement. Results: The panel approved four overarching principles and 86 statements, organized into 16 broad categories. These statements cover all three phases of pregnancy in AIRDs, the safety of medications during pregnancy and lactation, contraception, assisted reproductive techniques, fertility preservation, and hormonal replacement therapy, covering both female and male aspects as relevant. Conclusion: In a field often lacking high‐quality data, these consensus statements from APLAR provide expert opinion‐based guidance to support clinical decision‐making. It is envisaged that it will assist in educational and training purposes and help shape future research priorities.

Critical appraisal of evidence involves carefully evaluating a study’s validity, reliability, applicability and generalisability. It is essential for all clinicians and those involved in academic publishing. A manuscript must adhere to two sets of standards. First, reporting guidelines ensure uniformity, transparency and clarity. Then, critical appraisal tools or criteria assess the study’s methodological robustness. The manuscript may undergo a preliminary screening before we initiate the critical appraisal process. The foremost criterion is evaluating the journal’s quality, assessing the study topic, design and sample size, and checking if the study objectives and outcome measures have been clearly stated. An original study is typically presented in the standard ‘IMRaD’ format, with each section addressing a specific set of questions. The primary purpose of the ‘Introduction’ section is to justify the study’s objective. The ‘Methods’ section is crucial to the manuscript. It aids in assessing the validity of the research, describes the critical parameters in a study protocol and ensures the study’s replicability. The main components covered in the ‘Methods’ section include the study question, design, population, sample size, outcome measures, statistical analysis and details of ethics approval. The ‘Results’ section should discuss the study’s findings, which are outlined in the objectives. The ‘Discussion’ section covers the implications of the study, which should be balanced, and the interpretation in this section should align with the reported results. The validity of a study is nothing but its closeness to the truth, that is, the extent to which the results are accurate and free from bias. Hence, minimising this chance of bias in a study makes it more valid. Internal validity generally reflects a study’s methodological robustness, and external validity reflects the generalisability or applicability. In this era of evidence-based medicine, critical appraisal becomes necessary as people always discuss practising it in their daily clinical practice.