Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33842660›Full record

ReviewAnnals of translational medicine2021

Advances in cutaneous vasculitis research and clinical care.

Avrom Caplan, Robert G Micheletti

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Annals of translational medicine, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing 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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
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.

Avrom CaplanRonald O. Perelman Department of Dermatology; New York University Grossman School of Medicine, New York, NY, USA.
Robert G MichelettiDepartments of Dermatology and Medicine, Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Vasculitis is characterized by inflammation and destruction of blood vessels, resulting in downstream ischemic tissue damage. Diagnosis of vasculitis is a careful exercise in clinical-pathologic correlation, depending upon the clinical manifestations, organs involved, the size of affected blood vessels, imaging, and laboratory findings. While some vasculitis subtypes may be confined to the skin, serious internal organ involvement or underlying disease states may also occur. Accordingly, the skin plays an important role in the diagnostic process and may be prognostically important in some cases, signifying more severe systemic disease. The skin also provides opportunities for tissue-based translational research, improving understanding of disease pathophysiology. Dermatologists, therefore, play a critical role in evaluating vasculitis and helping to advance vasculitis clinical care and research. Recent updates in vasculitis nomenclature and terminology, evidence-based diagnosis, pathogenesis, and investigations of targeted therapies are changing vasculitis research and leading to fundamental shifts in disease management. Treatment advances favoring evidence-based and targeted, rather than broadly immunosuppressive, therapies are in development, while a multicenter trial for skin-limited vasculitis is ongoing. Collaborative multidisciplinary research networks are key to current and future advances in vasculitis research. In this review, we describe recent developments in vasculitis clinical care and research, starting with a discussion of efforts to develop diagnostic and classification criteria, followed by updates on the evaluation and treatment of vasculitis.

Indexed as

cutaneous vasculitisNETosisnomenclaturetargeted therapyVasculitis

Identifiers

PMID33842660
PMCPMC8033321

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.