Observational studyInternational journal of immunopathology and pharmacology2016
Digital ulcers in scleroderma patients: A retrospective observational study.
Observational study in International journal of immunopathology and pharmacology, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
6 citing papers in PubMed, 17 citations in OpenAlex.
- Treatment of digital ulcers in systemic sclerosis: recent developments and future perspectives.Clinical rheumatology · 2023Review
- Real life use of prostacyclin analog (iloprost), a multi-centric survey data from the Scleroderma study group Emilia Romagna (Sclero-RER) and review of the literature.Acta bio-medica : Atenei Parmensis · 2023Review
- Stem cell-based therapy for systemic sclerosis.Rheumatology advances in practice · 2023Review
- A patient-centered approach to the burden of symptoms in patients with scleroderma treated with Bosentan: A prospective single-center observational study.Experimental and therapeutic medicine · 2020Article
- The safety of iloprost in systemic sclerosis in a real-life experience.Clinical rheumatology · 2018Article
- Cutaneous Manifestations of Scleroderma and Scleroderma-Like Disorders: a Comprehensive Review.Clinical reviews in allergy & immunology · 2017Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe guidelines for digital ulcers (DUs) management in systemic sclerosis (SSc) indicate the use of iloprost to induce wound healing and bosentan to prevent the onset of new DU. The aim of our study was to evaluate whether the combination treatment may surmount the effect of the single drug.
methodsWe analyzed data regarding 34 patients with SSc and at least one active DU persisting despite 6 months of iloprost therapy, and treated for other 6 months with a combination therapy, i.e. iloprost plus bosentan.
resultsOverall, patients initially presented 69 DUs (58 on the fingers and 11 on the legs). At the end of the study 34 (49.3%) DUs were completely healed (responding, R), 18 (26.1%) started the healing process (partially responding, PR), and 17 (24.6%) did not respond (NR) to therapy. No new DU was recorded and the ulcers localized on the legs did not respond to the combination therapy. Finally, data have been analyzed by dividing the patients in two groups according to the fibrosis level on the finger. In the group with mild fibrosis, 83.4% of DUs resulted with showing complete healing while, in the group with severe fibrosis, only 18% of DUs were healed (P = 0.024).
conclusionThe treatment with iloprost plus bosentan is effective in determining healing of DUs in SSc patients with mild digital skin fibrosis. Conversely, the severity of skin fibrosis strongly influences the healing process of DUs. The study confirmed the efficacy of bosentan to prevent onset of new DUs.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.