ArticleEuropean journal of dermatology : EJD2022
Chilblains observed during the COVID-19 pandemic cannot be distinguished from classic, cold-related chilblains
Article in European journal of dermatology : EJD, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Enhanced TLR7-dependent production of type I interferon by pDCs underlies pandemic chilblains.The Journal of experimental medicine · 2025Article
- Pandemic chilblains: Are they SARS-CoV-2-related or not?Clinical immunology (Orlando, Fla.) · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Type 1 interferon (IFN-I) response induced by SARS-CoV-2 has been hypothesized to explain the association between chilblain lesions (CL) and SARS-CoV-2 infection. Objective: To explore direct cytopathogenicity of SARS-CoV-2 in CL and to focus on IFN-I expression in patients with chilblains. Materials & Methods: A monocentric cohort of 43 patients presenting with CL from April 2020 to May 2021 were included. During this period, all CL were, a priori, considered to be SARS-CoV-2-related. RT-qPCR on nasopharyngeal swabs and measurements of anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies were performed. Anti-SARS-CoV-2 immunostainings as well as SARS-CoV-2 RT-qPCR were performed on biopsy specimens of CL and controls. Expression of MX1 and IRF7 was analysed on patients’ biopsy specimens and/or PBMC and compared with controls and/or chilblains observed before the pandemic. Serum IFN-α was also measured. Results: RT-qPCR was negative in all patients and serological tests were positive in 11 patients. Immunostaining targeting viral proteins confirmed the lack of specificity. SARS-CoV-2 RNA remained undetected in all CL specimens. MX1 immunostaining was positive in CL and in pre-pandemic chilblains compared to controls. MX1 and IRF7 expression was significantly increased in CL specimens but not in PBMC. Serum IFN-α was undetected in CL patients. Conclusion: CL observed during the pandemic do not appear to be directly related to SARS-CoV-2 infection, either based on viral cytopathogenicity or high IFN-I response induced by the virus.
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.