Evidence map›Paper›PMID 11123092›Full record

ReviewCurrent rheumatology reports2000

Laboratory testing in the evaluation and diagnosis of vasculitis.

M L Cuellar, L R Espinoza

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Current rheumatology reports, 2000. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

7 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Systemic Lupus Erythematosus Vasculitis: A Current Therapeutic Overview.Current treatment options in cardiovascular medicine · 2004
    Article
  7. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

M L CuellarSection of Allergy, Immunology, and Rheumatology, Department of Medicine, Tulane University Medical Center, New Orleans, LA 70112-2822, USA.
L R Espinoza

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

A multitude of tests are available for the diagnosis and management of the vasculitides. Most of them are nonspecific but provide useful information that, when appropriately used in conjunction with the patient's history and physical examination can be of great assistance in arriving at a final diagnosis. In addition, information gathered may be of great help in monitoring disease activity and clinical response to therapy, in indicating the presence of specific organ system involvement, in monitoring toxicity of medication used, and in assessing prognosis. Serial measurements of acute phase reactants, complete blood cell count with differential, biochemistry profiles, urinalysis, and C3 and C4 levels should be obtained in all patients. Antineutrophil cytoplasmic antibodies (ANCA) determination provides valuable information and is highly specific for the diagnosis of small-vessel vasculitides, particularly Wegener's granulomatosis and microscopic polyangiitis. ANCA levels can be particularly useful to assess disease activity in these disorders. Hepatitis-B and, more importantly, hepatitis-C testing is extremely useful, particularly in the presence of liver involvement and associated risk factors. Angiographic studies may confirm the diagnosis, particularly if there is laboratory and clinical evidence of specific organ involvement. It should be noted, however, that angiography may be normal even when vasculitis is present, or the findings may be nonspecific. A definite diagnosis is provided by a tissue biopsy. This should be performed whenever there is access to clinically affected tissue.

Indexed as

Clinical Laboratory TechniquesFemaleHumansMaleSensitivity and SpecificityVasculitis

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.