ReviewClinical rheumatology2020
Certain perspectives about the use of corticosteroids for managing hospitalized patients with rheumatic diseases.
Review in Clinical rheumatology, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Patient perceptions and knowledge of corticosteroid injections: A cross-sectional survey study.PloS one · 2026Article
- Challenging issues in rheumatology: thoughts and perspectives.Clinical rheumatology · 2021Article
- The perennial search for alternatives to corticosteroids in rheumatology: is there light at the end of the tunnel?Clinical rheumatology · 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The administration of cortisone to a bedridden patient with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) 70 years ago was a transformative event in modern medicine. We have since struggled to balance the near-miraculous anti-rheumatic with the yet all-too-frequent devastating side effects of glucocorticoids (GC). With the current availability of newer disease-modifying and biologic anti-rheumatic agents, we were rather surprised to note that 94% of sick hospitalized patients with systemic rheumatic diseases at our medical center were on corticosteroids during a 3-month observation period. Comparing contemporary with past practices from historical references, we confirmed a perhaps paradoxical trend of increasing steroid usage in certain contexts over the years. Sixty-seven percent of our hospitalized lupus patients were started on GC of greater than 30 mg prednisone equivalent compared with 50% in the 1950s. Seventy-five percent of our RA inpatients had their GC dose increased on discharge. Both (2/2) our new RA patients were started on GC, compared with 69% in the 2000s and just 36% in the 1990s. This likely reflects both improved abilities to keep sick patients alive and inability of other anti-rheumatic therapies to consistently induce or sustain disease remission compared with the usually highly efficacious yet inexpensive GC in these particular patients. Administration of glucocorticoids to ill, often infected, patients with systemic rheumatic diseases remains more art than science. Current perspectives view glucocorticoids as considerably less salutary than previously thought; we are still challenged to keep our patients from developing preventable complications. These observations emphasize the need for more and better therapeutic alternatives to glucocorticoids. There are now several examples-disease-modifying and biologic medications for RA and biologics for lupus and vasculitis-that suggest the possibility of caring for our patients without the historical reliance on corticosteroids. We have made enormous progress since steroids were first offered to a patient with RA in 1948. We are hopeful the future will bring us interventions of comparable or better efficacy that are safer.
Indexed as
Identifiers
32833085What 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.