ArticleMuscle & nerve2025
Idiopathic Inflammatory Myopathies and Malignancy Screening: A Survey of Current Practices Amongst Canadian Neurologists and Rheumatologists.
Article in Muscle & nerve, 2025. 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION/
aimsAlthough the need for malignancy screening in idiopathic inflammatory myopathies (IIM) is generally accepted, data to guide the choice and timing of investigations are limited. Our aim was to characterize the gaps and uncertainties amongst Canadian neurologists and rheumatologists with respect to malignancy screening in IIM.
methodsAn online survey consisting of 18 multiple-choice questions related to malignancy screening practices was distributed to adult neurologists and rheumatologists practising in Canada, and survey responses were described and compared between groups.
resultsOf 69 participants, the majority (95.7%) performed malignancy screening. However, there was variability in practice including delegation and choice of screening tests, influence of patient-specific factors, and timing of repeat testing relative to original testing. Only 18.2% of respondents were confident in their malignancy screening practices. The most significant perceived knowledge gap was lack of consensus or guidelines on choice and frequency of malignancy screening (92.8%). Compared with neurologists, rheumatologists saw a higher number of IIM patients per year (72.5% vs. 41.4% reported five or more, p = 0.009), were more likely to consider patient risk factors and order more investigations, while neurologists were more likely to repeat testing. DISCUSSION: Variability and knowledge gaps exist amongst neurologists and rheumatologists with regard to malignancy screening in IIM patients. The identified variability and lack of confidence may lead to lack of standardization of care, and potentially either under- or over-investigating of IIM patients for malignancy. Further research is required to better understand the optimal choice of tests and timing of repeat investigations.
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.