ArticleAdvances in rheumatology (London, England)2024
Referrals for rheumatologic evaluation following a positive antinuclear antibody test result. A cross-sectional single center Brazilian study.
Article in Advances in rheumatology (London, England), 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
14 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundIn general, patients are referred for rheumatological evaluation due to isolated laboratory abnormalities, especially antinuclear antibody (ANA) positivity, with the risk of more severe patients remaining on the waiting list for longer than desired. The aim of this study was to analyze the demographic, clinical, and laboratory information of patients referred to a specialized rheumatological care unit because of positive antinuclear antibody.
methodsThis is a retrospective study of 99 out of 1670 patients seen by the same rheumatologist between 01/01/2011 and 01/01/2019. Patients whose referrals were exclusively due to the ANA test result and the specialist's final diagnosis being "abnormal finding of serum immunological test" (ICD-10 R769) were included. Sociodemographic, clinical, and laboratory information were extracted from the consulting rheumatologist's chart. Descriptive statistics were used for data analysis.
resultsA total of 99 patients were included, most of whom were female (84.8%) with a median age of 49 years. At the moment of specialist's appointment, 97 patients (97.9%) repeated the ANA test, and 77 patients remained positive. Of these, only 35 (35.35%) were in a high titer range (greater than or equal to 1:320). Complete blood count for cytopenia's investigation was not performed in a high percentage of patients (22.2%), as well as urinalysis (31.3%). In addition, more than 70% of patients score 0 to 1 classification criteria for Systemic Lupus Erythematosus, according to SLE - ACR 1987 (American College of Rheumatology) and SLICC 2012 (Systemic Lupus International Collaborating Clinics).
conclusionsMost patients are still referred for specialized evaluation due to the misinterpretation of laboratory tests that were inappropriately requested in patients without clinical evidence of autoimmune rheumatic disease.
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.