Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37959363›Full record

ArticleJournal of clinical medicine2023

Establishing a Diagnosis of Pulmonary Sarcoidosis.

Jan C Grutters

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of clinical medicine, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed
2.1field-weighted citation impact, top 12% of its field
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

10 citing papers in PubMed, 12 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Scoping out sarcoidosis: the evolving role of bronchoscopy.European respiratory review : an official journal of the European Respiratory Society · 2026
    Review
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. WASOG 2023 conference highlights.Sarcoidosis, vasculitis, and diffuse lung diseases : official journal of WASOG · 2024
    Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
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

1 author at 1 institution in 1 country.

Jan C GruttersILD Center of Excellence, Department of Pulmonology, St. Antonius Hospital, 3435 CM Nieuwegein, The Netherlands.
St. Antonius Ziekenhuis · NL

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Pulmonary sarcoidosis is the most prevalent manifestation of sarcoidosis and the commonest diagnosis in clinics for ILD. Due to the lack of a simple and reliable test, making the diagnosis is often challenging. There are three criteria that must always be considered: (1) compatible clinical presentation; (2) evidence of granuloma formation (usually non-caseating); and (3) exclusion of alternative causes of granulomatous disease. There are various tools available for diagnosis, amongst which serum biomarkers like sACE and sIL-2R, HRCT, BAL, EBUS/EUS and sometimes bronchoscopic or surgical lung biopsy are most contributive. However, the degree of invasiveness of the applied test and associated risk to the patient must be weighed against management consequences. In specific situations (e.g., presentation as Löfgren's syndrome) or when there is high suspicion based on HRCT in the context of supportive clinical findings, it might be justifiable to decide on a "working diagnosis of sarcoidosis" and to refrain from further invasive procedures for the patient. This should, however, preferably be agreed upon after discussion in an experienced multidisciplinary team and requires close follow-up of the patient. In general, it is advisable to always maintain a healthy dose of skepticism when making the diagnosis of sarcoidosis, especially when the clinical course of disease gives rise to this.

Indexed as

diagnosismultidisciplinary team discussionpulmonary sarcoidosisworking diagnosis

Identifiers

PMID37959363
PMCPMC10650830
OpenAlexW4388231257

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.