ReviewJournal of nephrology2020
On the role of skin biopsy in the diagnosis of calcific uremic arteriolopathy: a case-based discussion.
Review in Journal of nephrology, 2020. 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, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- Individualizing the lifesaving journey for calciphylaxis: addressing rapidly progressive attacks with multidimensional and AI research for regenerative medicine.Renal failure · 2024Article
- Early diagnosis strategy of calciphylaxis in dialysis patients.Renal failure · 2023Review
- Success of small-dose fractionated sodium thiosulfate in the treatment of calciphylaxis in a peritoneal dialysis patient.BMC nephrology · 2022Article
- Prevalence and Clinical Characteristics of Calciphylaxis in Chinese Hemodialysis Patients.Frontiers in medicine · 2022Article
- Calciphylaxis in end-stage kidney disease: outcome data from the United Kingdom Calciphylaxis Study.Journal of nephrology · 2021Article
- A Case of Early Calciphylaxis Diagnosed by Bone Scan.Case reports in medicine · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Calciphylaxis is a rare disease characterized by ectopic calcification of skin arterioles resulting in ischemia, thrombosis and necrosis. Since end stage renal disease patients are those mainly affected, the term calcific uremic arteriolopathy (CUA) is also suggested. Early clinical manifestations are subtle, while overt necrotic ulcers may quickly spread and become infected so as to result in ominous outcome. Diagnosis might not be easy due to the number of other ischemic and non-ischemic skin lesions observed in uraemia. Skin biopsy, has been proposed as the diagnostic test and is often considered, but not systematically performed due to the hypothetical risk of further spreading of the lesions. Such ambiguity could be responsible for misdiagnosis or underdiagnosis. We review here five consecutive cases recorded in our Unit, all submitted to skin biopsy but with inconsistent results which generated some clinical frustration. Thus, we decided to carefully re-evaluate all of them together with pathologists and dermatologists. However, even after this ex-post discussion, we could not reach a complete agreement on the final diagnosis. In the meanwhile, papers were published in the literature that started to shed some light on the role of skin biopsy in the diagnosis of CUA.
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.