Evidence map›Paper›PMID 17923170›Full record

ArticleJournal of the American Academy of Dermatology2007

Number, characteristics, and classification of patients with dermatomyositis seen by dermatology and rheumatology departments at a large tertiary medical center.

Rhonda Q Klein, Valerie Teal, Lynne Taylor, Andrea B Troxel, Victoria P Werth

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology, 2007. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
17citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

17 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Autoantibodies and their significance in myositis.Current rheumatology reports · 2008
    Article
  17. 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

5 authors.

Rhonda Q KleinUniversity of Pennsylvania School of Medicine, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA.
Valerie Teal
Lynne Taylor
Andrea B Troxel
Victoria P Werth

Funding

PATIENT-ORIENTED RESEARCH IN SKIN AUTOMMUNE DISEASEK24AR002207 · NIAMS · UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA · PI WERTH, VICTORIA P · 2001 to 2012
$1.3M
NIAMS NIH HHS K24 AR002207NIAMS NIH HHS K24-AR 02207
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe current diagnostic criteria for dermatomyositis (DM) exclude patients without muscle involvement. As a result there is a paucity of research related to the complete spectrum of the disease.

objectiveThe goal of this study was to evaluate differences in the clinical manifestations of DM seen by dermatology relative to rheumatology. We hypothesized that patients with minimal (hypomyopathic) or no (amyopathic) muscle disease would more likely be seen in dermatology, whereas those with more severe (classic) muscle disease would be seen in rheumatology.

methodsWe performed a retrospective chart review of patients with DM seen by our dermatology and rheumatology departments to classify spectrum, presentation, and complications. Patients seen between July 1, 2003, and June 30, 2006, were identified by Current Procedural Terminology billing code 710.3. Patients with mixed connective tissue diseases or miscoded DM were excluded.

resultsIn all, 131 (65%) patients seen in dermatology, 58 (29%) in rheumatology, and 13 (6%) in both departments were identified. In all, 83 (69%) patients seen in dermatology, 27 (23%) in rheumatology, and 10 (8%) in both departments met criteria for inclusion in the study. The number of patients seen in rheumatology given the classification of classic DM (CDM) (24 of 27 [89%]), hypomyopathic DM (2 of 27 [7%]), and amyopathic DM (ADM) (1 of 27 [4%]) differed significantly from dermatology, where CDM comprised 27 of 83 (33%), hypomyopathic DM comprised 23 of 83 (28%), and ADM comprised 33 of 83 (40%) of the population, respectively (P < .001). Sex, ethnicity, and rates of interstitial lung disease differed between departments. There was no difference in the rates of interstitial lung disease between CDM and ADM (P = .30). The degree of muscle involvement did not correlate with the rates of DM-associated malignancy (P = .57). Few patients with ADM had muscle biopsy (n = 1) or electromyography (n = 7) testing. Positive anti-Jo-1 was seen in 2 of 96 patients (2%; one CDM and one ADM, both with interstitial lung disease), reflecting an overall low prevalence of this autoantibody, or a potential problem with the laboratory assay. LIMITATIONS: Patients reflect the population in only one institution and, thus, the results may not be generalizable to other settings or referral centers. Because this is a retrospective chart review, results are limited by missing data and nonstandardized physical examinations and laboratory data across patients and physicians.

conclusionsThere is a clear difference in DM presentation to dermatology and rheumatology by degree of myositis-complicated disease.

Indexed as

AdultDermatologyDermatomyositisFemaleHospital DepartmentsHumansMaleMiddle AgedPhiladelphiaRetrospective StudiesRheumatology

Identifiers

PMID17923170
PMCPMC11016313

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.