ReviewEuropean respiratory review : an official journal of the European Respiratory Society2016
Management of sarcoidosis in clinical practice.
Review in European respiratory review : an official journal of the European Respiratory Society, 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, 18 citations in OpenAlex.
- Repository Corticotropin Injection for the Treatment of Pulmonary Sarcoidosis: A Narrative Review.Pulmonary therapy · 2022Review
- Novelties in Imaging of Thoracic Sarcoidosis.Journal of clinical medicine · 2021Review
- Delphi consensus recommendations for a treatment algorithm in pulmonary sarcoidosis.European respiratory review : an official journal of the European Respiratory Society · 2020Review
- The changing face of theEuropean respiratory review : an official journal of the European Respiratory Society · 2018Article
- Relationship between radiologic patterns, pulmonary function values and bronchoalveolar lavage fluid cells in newly diagnosed sarcoidosis.Journal of thoracic disease · 2017Article
- Adding new perspectives to the European Respiratory Review.European respiratory review : an official journal of the European Respiratory Society · 2016Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Sarcoidosis is a systemic disease of unknown cause with very diverse presentation, outcome, severity and need for treatments. While some presentations may be very typical, for many patients, the presentation is nonspecific, with shared associations with other diseases at times being by far more frequent or misleading, which can be a cause of significant delay and often several consultations before a diagnosis of sarcoidosis can be confirmed. This is particularly the case when pulmonary manifestations are in the forefront. The diagnosis relies on three well-known criteria. In clinical practice, these criteria are not easily implemented, particularly by physicians without expertise in sarcoidosis, which can lead to a risk of either under- or over-diagnosis. Qualifying the presentation according to sarcoidosis diagnosis is essential. However, it is often not easy to classify the presentation as typical versus compatible or compatible versus inconsistent. Further investigations are needed before any other hypothesis is to be considered. It is important to detect events and to determine whether or not they are indicative of a flare of sarcoidosis. Eventually, treatment needs to be related to the correct indications. The evaluation of the efficacy and safety of treatments is crucial. To address such issues, we present five emblematic cases that illustrate this.
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.