Spondyloarthropathies tardives se présentant sous le masque d’une pseudopolyarthrite rhizomélique

Djaha, Jean Mermoz; Jenvrin, C.; Dupont, M.-P.; Steiner, Johann; Bandt, M. De

doi:10.1016/j.revmed.2013.01.002

Cited by 8 publications

(1 citation statement)

References 14 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…3 ). The possibility that PMR at onset may mask a late onset of undifferentiated spondylarthritis has been more and more often described [ 24 – 26 ]. In these patients, a correct diagnosis is usually possible if we consider the entire clinical spectrum of features of spondyloarthritis and not only the PMR-like manifestations.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Diagnosis of polymyalgia rheumatica in primary health care: favoring and confounding factors – a cohort study

Manzo¹,

Natale²,

Traini³

2018

Reumatologia

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ObjectivesTo evaluate in a primary care setting the favoring and confounding factors for the diagnosis of polymyalgia rheumatica (PMR).Material and methodsAmong 303 patients consecutively referred by their general practitioners (GPs) to our rheumatologic outpatient clinic, we identified three groups: group A – patients with confirmed diagnosis of PMR, group B – patients with unconfirmed diagnosis, group C – patients with unrecognized PMR. All the diagnostic confounding and favoring factors were discussed with GPs using an e-mail questionnaire. Participation in rheumatology training courses represented the final question. The collected data were statistically assessed in a blind way. In Fisher’s exact test and ANOVA test, a p-value was significant if < 0.05. The study was carried out in compliance with the Helsinki Declaration and approved by the Ethics Committee of Mariano Lauro Hospital. Every patient signed an informed consent form at the time of the first visit.ResultsAll patients were Caucasian; 24.1% were male; mean age was 72.3 ±8.6 years (min. – 51, max. – 94). There were 41 patients in group A, 93 in group B and 169 in group C. The percentage of misdiagnoses was very high (87.1%): among 134 patients diagnosed with PMR by their GPs (group A + group B) confirmation was made in 41, and in 169 unrecognized PMR was found. Participation in training courses was very significant compared to the diagnostic accuracy (p < 0.0001 in χ2 test) and to the diagnosis timing (24.3 days ±12.5 vs. 42.9 ±15.5 with p-value < 0.05 in the ANOVA test). When the percentages were assessed according to participation, an inadequate evaluation of some clinical manifestations favored over-diagnosis among the trained GPs.ConclusionsThe level of diagnostic accuracy for PMR must be improved in primary care. Participation in rheumatology training courses can be an important step.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%