ArticleSarcoidosis, vasculitis, and diffuse lung diseases : official journal of WASOG2022
Patient profile and comparison of three diagnostic criteria for cardiac sarcoidosis in a tuberculosis endemic population.
Article in Sarcoidosis, vasculitis, and diffuse lung diseases : official journal of WASOG, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- The prevalence of tuberculosis infection in India: A systematic review and meta-analysis.The Indian journal of medical researchPooled it
- Prevalence of Tuberculosis Infection among Various Risk Groups in India: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Indian journal of community medicine : official publication of Indian Association of Preventive & Social MedicineReview
- Challenges in diagnosis of cardiac sarcoidosis-an observational study from tertiary care center in north India.Indian heart journalObservational
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 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundCardiac sarcoidosis (CS) is an underdiagnosed and life-threatening condition. Histopathological diagnosis is difficult due to the risks and variable diagnostic yield of endomyocardial biopsy.
objectivesTo study the clinical profile and compare the diagnostic criteria of CS in a cohort of sarcoidosis.
methodsA retrospective review of the Sarcoidosis database (375 patients) was performed to identify patients with CS. Demographic and clinical details were retrieved. We applied the available diagnostic criteria for the diagnosis of CS: The World Association of Sarcoidosis and Other Granulomatous Diseases (WASOG), Heart Rhythm Society (HRS), and Japanese Ministry of Health and Welfare (JMHW) criteria.
resultsOut of the 375 patients, 15 (4%) were identified with CS. The median age was 41 years, and 53% were female. The most common symptoms were breathlessness, palpitation, and fatigue in 80%, 53.3%, and 46.6% of patients, respectively. Tuberculin positivity (≥ 10mm induration) was seen in 26.6%. 80% and 53.3% of the patients had abnormal ECG and 2D echocardiography findings, respectively. Six patients had a history of Ventricular tachycardia (40%). LV Ejection fraction was reduced in 12 subjects (80%). Cardiac-MRI showed late gadolinium enhancement in 53.3%. A definitive histopathological diagnosis for sarcoidosis was established in 86.6% (13/15) patients. Of the 15, all satisfied JMHW criteria and WASOG criteria (12 (80%) at least probable category, 3 (20%) possible CS), and 13 (86.6%) met HRS criteria for a diagnosis of CS.
conclusionIn a cohort of 375 patients with sarcoidosis in a tuberculosis endemic setting, 4% were diagnosed with cardiac sarcoidosis. Histopathological diagnosis may be obtained by sampling from extracardiac sites. JMHW and WASOG criteria perform equally well in TB endemic settings.
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.