Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28718061›Full record

ReviewCurrent rheumatology reports2017

Schnitzler Syndrome: a Review.

L Gusdorf, D Lipsker

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Current rheumatology reports, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 34 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
34citing 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

34 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Schnitzler syndrome.Dermatologie (Heidelberg, Germany) · 2025
    Review
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Review
  9. Systemic autoinflammatory disorders.Clinical and experimental pediatrics · 2023
    Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. The many faces of pediatric urticaria.Frontiers in allergy · 2023
    Review
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. New insights on multigenic autoinflammatory diseases.Therapeutic advances in musculoskeletal disease · 2022
    Review
  16. Article
  17. Macroglobulinemia and Autoinflammatory Disease.Rheumatology and immunology research · 2021
    Review
  18. Review
  19. Review
  20. 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.

L GusdorfFaculté de Médecine, Université de Strasbourg et Clinique Dermatologique, Hôpitaux Universitaires de Strasbourg, Strasbourg, France.
D LipskerFaculté de Médecine, Université de Strasbourg et Clinique Dermatologique, Hôpitaux Universitaires de Strasbourg, Strasbourg, France. dan.lipsker@chru-strasbourg.fr.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purpose of reviewWe focus on recent advances in diagnosis and therapeutic strategies, as well as on pathogenesis of Schnitzler syndrome. RECENT

findingsNew diagnostic criteria were established, and their external validity was assessed in a retrospective cohort study. The cytokine interleukin-1 (IL-1) plays a crucial role in the pathogenesis of the Schnitzler syndrome, and this explains the spectacular efficiency of IL-1 blocking therapies. The Schnitzler syndrome is now considered as a late-onset acquired autoinflammatory syndrome in which the cytokine IL-1 plays a crucial role. IL-1 blocking therapies are efficient on the inflammation-linked symptoms but not on the monoclonal component. Therefore, they probably don't reduce the risk of the development of lymphoproliferative disorders that remains the main prognostic issue. The link between autoinflammation and the monoclonal component needs to be further elucidated.

Indexed as

CytokinesHumansInflammationInterleukin-1Schnitzler SyndromeCytokinesInterleukin-1AnakinraAutoinflammationIL-1 blocking therapyInterleukin-1Neutrophilic urticarial dermatosisSchnitzler syndrome

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.