2012
DOI: 10.1183/09031936.00144311
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Value of s-ACE, BAL lymphocytosis, and CD4+/CD8+ and CD103+CD4+/CD4+ T-cell ratios in diagnosis of sarcoidosis

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
2
1

Citation Types

0
27
0

Year Published

2016
2016
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
4
2

Relationship

0
6

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 30 publications
(27 citation statements)
references
References 8 publications
0
27
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Heron et al [16] and Mota et al [17] also reported a good discriminative power of the CD103+CD4+/CD4+ ratio (table 5). However, in another study by Hyldgaard et al [18], the combination of CD4+/CD8+ and CD103+CD4+/CD4+ ratios had a sensitivity of only 42% and a specificity of 91%, which led to conclude that the combination of these ratios was a poor marker for sarcoidosis. Of note, all those studies had small study populations (table 5), and two of them included less than 20 cases with sarcoidosis [15,18].…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 96%
See 4 more Smart Citations
“…Heron et al [16] and Mota et al [17] also reported a good discriminative power of the CD103+CD4+/CD4+ ratio (table 5). However, in another study by Hyldgaard et al [18], the combination of CD4+/CD8+ and CD103+CD4+/CD4+ ratios had a sensitivity of only 42% and a specificity of 91%, which led to conclude that the combination of these ratios was a poor marker for sarcoidosis. Of note, all those studies had small study populations (table 5), and two of them included less than 20 cases with sarcoidosis [15,18].…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 96%
“…Four studies analyzing the CD103+CD4+/CD4+ ratio in sarcoidosis, either alone or in combination with the CD4+/CD8+ ratio, have been previously performed [15,16,17,18]. The cut-off values defined in those studies to discriminate between sarcoidosis and other diagnoses were applied to our study population for comparison (table 5).…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 3 more Smart Citations