ArticleRheumatology (Oxford, England)2026
Different age, different phenotype: a comparative analysis of juvenile and adult-onset dermatomyositis from a tertiary centre.
Article in Rheumatology (Oxford, England), 2026. 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
13 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo evaluate age-related differences in clinical features, serological profiles, diagnostic approaches, treatment strategies and outcomes among juvenile- and adult-onset dermatomyositis (JDM and AoDM) patients managed at the same tertiary referral centre.
methodsThis retrospective cohort included 180 patients with dermatomyositis meeting the 2017 EULAR/ACR classification criteria and followed between 1995 and 2025 at the paediatric and adult rheumatology clinics. Diagnosis before 16 years was classified as JDM.
resultsAmong 180 patients, 86 had JDM and 94 had AoDM. A bimodal age distribution was observed, with peaks at 6.8 and 45.7 years. 67.8% were female; median follow-up was 5.9 years. Muscle weakness (86.7%) and cutaneous involvement (98.3%) were most common findings. Calcinosis was frequent in JDM (33%) but rare in adults (one case). Both calcinosis and arthritis were significantly associated with JDM (P = 0.007 and P = 0.049). Anti-NXP2 was the leading JDM autoantibody (31.4%, 11/35), whereas anti-synthetase antibodies (34.6%, 9/26) in AoDM. Glucocorticoids were given to both groups; however, steroid-free (40.3% vs 89.6%, P = 0.020) and drug-free remission rates (40.3% vs 16.7%, P = 0.020) were higher in JDM. Malignancy-associated dermatomyositis occurred only in AoDM (n = 25, 26.6%). Age at diagnosis was independently associated with both mortality (OR 1.07 per year, 95% CI: 1.02-1.11) and malignancy (OR 1.05 per year, 95% CI: 1.00-1.10).
conclusionJDM and AoDM are not merely age-defined variants but display distinct clinical, serological and prognostic profiles. JDM shows calcinosis and better remission and survival, whereas AoDM is strongly associated with malignancy and higher mortality burden, highlighting the need for age‑tailored diagnostic and management strategies.
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.