ArticleInternal and emergency medicine2017
The diagnostic evaluation of patients with a suspected hereditary periodic fever syndrome: experience from a referral center in Italy.
Article in Internal and emergency medicine, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 13 citations in OpenAlex.
- Real-world therapeutic strategies in active adult-onset Still's disease: clinical insights from the GIRRCS-AOSD study group.Frontiers in immunology · 2026Article
- Knowledge and Current Practices in Monogenic Uveitis: An International Survey by IUSG and AIDA Network.Ophthalmology and therapy · 2024Article
- Familial Mediterranean Fever: Assessing the Overall Clinical Impact and Formulating Treatment Plans.Mediterranean journal of hematology and infectious diseases · 2019Review
- Hints for Genetic and Clinical Differentiation of Adult-Onset Monogenic Autoinflammatory Diseases.Mediators of inflammation · 2019Review
- Diagnostic Criteria for Adult-Onset Periodic Fever, Aphthous Stomatitis, Pharyngitis, and Cervical Adenitis (PFAPA) Syndrome.Frontiers in immunology · 2017Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The study aims are to describe the activity of our Unit on the diagnostics of monogenic autoinflammatory diseases (AIDs), and to apply the clinical classification criteria for periodic fevers from the Eurofever Registry to our cohort of patients, thus evaluating their usefulness in the real life. We retrospectively analyzed data from patients referring to our Center for recurrent fever attacks, and undergoing genetic analysis between April 2014 and July 2016, and we applied the classification criteria to both genetically positive and -negative patients. We visited 195 patients (101 females, 94 males); 126 (64.6%) were adults and 192 (98.5%) Caucasians; 12.3% carried mutations and 12.7% of adults were genetically positive. No statistically significant differences were identified in the frequency of genetic diagnosis between adults and children (p = 0.82) as well as in the frequency of genetic diagnosis, based on the number of genes evaluated (p = 0.57). When we applied the Eurofever criteria, 126/195 (64.6%) patients were classified for at least one among the four main monogenic AIDs; 22 (11.3%) patients fulfilled criteria for 2 diseases and 4 (2.1%) for 3 diseases. Among patients carrying mutations, 12/24 (50%) correctly fulfilled the score, 3/24 (12.5%) fulfilled criteria differently from their genetic diagnosis; 9/22 (40.9%) recieved no classification. An expanded genetic testing does not seem useful, while a correct interpretation of patients' clinical picture may allow performing specific genetic testing. The classification criteria from the Eurofever Registry have shown to be a beneficial tool in the evaluation of patients with a suspected monogenic AID.
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.