4.7 Article

A national registry for juvenile dermatomyositis and other paediatric idiopathic inflammatory myopathies: 10 years' experience; the Juvenile Dermatomyositis National (UK and Ireland) Cohort Biomarker Study and Repository for Idiopathic Inflammatory Myopathies

期刊

RHEUMATOLOGY
卷 50, 期 1, 页码 137-145

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/rheumatology/keq261

关键词

Juvenile myositis; Dermatomyositis; Idiopathic inflammatory myopathy; Paediatric; Registry; Biobank; Multicentre

资金

  1. Cathal Hayes Research Trust
  2. Wellcome Trust UK [085860]
  3. Action Medical Research UK [SP4252]
  4. Henry smith Charity
  5. Arthritis Research UK (formerly the Arthritis Research Campaign) [14518, 18796]
  6. Raynaud's and Scleroderma Association
  7. UK Myositis Support Group
  8. Wellcome Trust
  9. Versus Arthritis [18474] Funding Source: researchfish

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Methods. A UK-wide network of centres and research group was established to contribute to the study. Standardized patient assessment, data collection forms and sample protocols were agreed. The Biobank includes collection of peripheral blood mononuclear cells, serum, genomic DNA and biopsy material. An independent steering committee was established to oversee the use of data/samples. Centre training was provided for patient assessment, data collection and entry. Results. Ten years after inception, the study has recruited 285 children, of which 258 have JDM or juvenile PM; 86% of the cases have contributed the biological samples. Serial sampling linked directly to the clinical database makes this a highly valuable resource. The study has been a platform for 20 sub-studies and attracted considerable funding support. Assessment of children with myositis in contributing centres has changed through participation in this study. Conclusions. This establishment of a multicentre registry and Biobank has facilitated research and contributed to progress in the management of a complex group of rare muscloskeletal conditions.

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