3.8 Review

Systemic sclerosis in sub-Saharan Africa: a systematic review

期刊

PAN AFRICAN MEDICAL JOURNAL
卷 37, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

AFRICAN FIELD EPIDEMIOLOGY NETWORK-AFENET
DOI: 10.11604/pamj.2020.37.176.22557

关键词

Systemic sclerosis; sub-Saharan Africa; connective tissue disease; systematic review

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Systematic studies on connective tissue disorders are scarce in sub-Saharan Africa. Our aim was to analyse the published clinical data on systemic sclerosis (SSc) in sub-Saharan Africa. A systematic review was carried out in accordance with the PRISMA guidelines. We screened the Embase, PubMed and African Health Sciences databases for literature published until March 2018. Searches produced 1210 publications. After abstract and full-text screenings, 91 publications were analysed, and epidemiological information and clinical features extracted. Publications were mostly publications case reports (36%), cross-sectional studies (26%) and case series (23%) and came predominantly from South Africa (45%), Nigeria (15%) and Senegal (14%). A total of 1884 patients were reported, 66% of patients came from South Africa. The patients were between 4 and 77 years old; 83% of patients were female. Overall, 72% had diffuse SSc. Raynaud ' s phenomenon was reported in 78% and skin ulcerations in 42% of patients. Focal skin hypopigmentation was common and telangiectasia not frequent. Interstitial lung involvement was reported in 50%, pulmonary hypertension in 30%, heart involvement in 28% of patients. Oesophageal reflux was observed in 70% and dysphagia in 37% of patients. Antinuclear antibodies were positive in 65% of patients. Anticentromere autoantibodies (9.2%) and RNA polymerase 3 antibodies (7.1%) were rare and anti-fibrillarin most frequent (16.5%). SSc presentations in sub-Saharan Africa differ from those reported in Europe and America by a frequent diffuse skin involvement, focal skin hypopigmentation and a high prevalence of antifibrillarin autoantibodies.

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

3.8
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