ArticleDeutsche medizinische Wochenschrift (1946)2025
[Retrospective analysis of a patient cohort with suspicion of systemic amyloidosis, finally not confirmed].
Article in Deutsche medizinische Wochenschrift (1946), 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Systemic amyloidoses present with non-specific symptoms which lead to a wide spectrum of possible differential diagnoses. In this retrospective study we analyzed a patient cohort that was referred to the amyloidosis center Heidelberg under the suspicion of amyloidosis but ultimately did not receive the diagnosis of amyloidosis after diagnostic work-up. The usefulness of differential diagnosis (DDX) generators in the diagnostic process of amyloidosis is unclear.Included in this retrospective analysis were the data of patients who were referred to the amyloidosis center between 2014 and 2020 and who did not receive the diagnosis of amyloidosis.In order to test the usefulness of the DDX-Generator, 90 patients without amyloidosis were selected from this cohort and compared to another cohort of 30 random patients with confirmed amyloidosis.The diagnosis of amyloidosis was ruled out in 351/2829 (12,4%) patients. The most frequent diagnoses were polyneuropathies (n=129/351, 36,7%) and cardiomyopathies (n=76/351, 21,7%). Plasma cell dyscrasia associated diseases were only present in 17/351 (4,8%) of patients. The cause of the disease remained unknown in 160/186 (86,0%) patients with a mean follow-up time of 34,5 months.In the non-amyloidosis cohort, the DDX generator listed amyloidosis as a possible differential diagnosis in the top 10 differential diagnoses in 25/90 (27,8%) cases.In the amyloidosis-cohort, amyloidosis was significantly more often present in the top 10 differential diagnoses (n=28/30, 93,3%,).Point of contact for patients with unknown or rare diseases are the centers for rare diseases. DDX-Generators could aid physicians to consider amyloidosis as a possible differential diagnosis.
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.