4.7 Article

Distribution and severity of weakness among patients with polymyositis, dermatomyositis and juvenile dermatomyositis

期刊

RHEUMATOLOGY
卷 48, 期 2, 页码 134-139

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/rheumatology/ken441

关键词

-

资金

  1. Intramural Research Program of the National Institutes of Health
  2. National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences
  3. National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases
  4. Rehabilitation Medicine Department
  5. NIH Clinical Center

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective. To describe the distribution and severity of muscle weakness using manual muscle testing (MMT) in 172 patients with PM, DM and juvenile DM (JDM). The secondary objectives included characterizing individual muscle group weakness and determining associations of weakness with functional status and myositis characteristics in this large cohort of patients with myositis. Methods. Strength was assessed for 13 muscle groups using the 10-point MMT and expressed as a total score, subscores based on functional and anatomical regions, and grades for individual muscle groups. Patient characteristics and secondary outcomes, such as clinical course, muscle enzymes, corticosteroid dosage and functional status were evaluated for association with strength using univariate and multivariate analyses. Results. A gradient of proximal weakness was seen, with PM weakest, DM intermediate and JDM strongest among the three myositis clinical groups (P 0.05). Hip flexors, hip extensors, hip abductors, neck flexors and shoulder abductors were the muscle groups with the greatest weakness among all three clinical groups. Muscle groups were affected symmetrically. Conclusions. Axial and proximal muscle impairment was reflected in the five weakest muscles shared by our cohort of myositis patients. However, differences in the pattern of weakness were observed among all three clinical groups. Our findings suggest a greater severity of proximal weakness in PM in comparison with DM.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据