ArticleBMC nephrology2025
A study of three cases of acquired reactive perforating collagenosis mimicking calciphylaxis.
Article in BMC nephrology, 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
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundCalciphylaxis, also termed calcific uremic arteriolopathy (CUA), is a rare and potentially fatal vasculopathic disorder predominantly affecting patients with end-stage kidney disease (ESKD), particularly those undergoing dialysis or who have recently received kidney transplantation. The hallmark histopathological features of CUA encompass medial calcification of systemic arterioles, intimal fibrosis, and thrombosis. In contrast, Acquired Reactive Perforating Collagenosis (ARPC), a rare perforating dermatosis frequently associated with systemic diseases, is characterized by the transcutaneous elimination of degenerated dermal collagen fibers through the epidermis. Despite the clinical resemblance of cutaneous lesions between CUA and ARPC, their therapeutic approaches differ substantially. Misdiagnosis may result in delayed appropriate treatment and consequently poor prognosis. CASE PRESENTATION: This report describes three cases of ARPC that were initially misdiagnosed as CUA at external institutions.
conclusionsThis report aims to provide clinicians with valuable insights to enhance the accurate diagnosis and optimal management of these two distinct conditions. CLINICAL TRIAL NUMBER: Not applicable.
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.