ReviewClinical cardiology2018
Viewpoints in the diagnosis and treatment of cardiac sarcoidosis: Proposed modification of current guidelines.
Review in Clinical cardiology, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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
8 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Isolated cardiac sarcoidosis: A systematic review.The Journal of international medical research · 2025Pooled it
- A systematic review for the evidence of recommendations and guidelines in hybrid nuclear cardiovascular imaging.European journal of nuclear medicine and molecular imaging · 2024Pooled it
- An Update on Myocarditis in Forensic Pathology.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Review
- Multicenter Registry in the Japanese Cardiac Sarcoidosis Prognostic (J-CASP) Study: Baseline Characteristics and Validation of the Non-invasive Approach UsingAnnals of nuclear cardiology · 2022Article
- Cardiac Sarcoidosis-Induced Heart Failure.Cureus · 2021Article
- The use of serial cardiacEuropean heart journal. Case reports · 2019Article
- The spectrum of myocarditis: from pathology to the clinics.Virchows Archiv : an international journal of pathology · 2019Review
- Viewpoints in the diagnosis and treatment of cardiac sarcoidosis: Proposed modification of current guidelines.Clinical cardiology · 2018Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Isolated cardiac sarcoidosis is a generally accepted disease condition, and the low yield of endomyocardial biopsy because of patchy involvement is also well known. However, current guidelines still require histologic confirmation of granuloma for the diagnosis of cardiac sarcoidosis, either in myocardial or extra-cardiac tissues. Therefore, only a presumptive diagnosis of chronic multifocal myocarditis of unknown origin can be made in a large number of patients in whom the only considerable diagnosis is cardiac sarcoidosis based on current knowledge. Even if these patients are treated with the same treatment scheme as that for cardiac sarcoidosis, which may not cause harm in the absence of a definite diagnosis, the true spectrum of cardiac sarcoidosis could not be determined for deciding the optimal treatment strategy. In addition, the current recommendations for dose, duration of initial steroid therapy, and treatment in patients who did not respond to initial steroid therapy are not easy to follow in real-world practice. We would like to propose a scoring system for the diagnosis of cardiac sarcoidosis and suggest our adoption or modification of the diverse current recommendations.
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.