4.1 Review

Diagnosis issues in sarcoidosis

期刊

RESPIRATORY MEDICINE AND RESEARCH
卷 77, 期 -, 页码 37-45

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.resmer.2019.09.002

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Multiple problems may be encountered during the diagnosis of sarcoidosis: at first diagnose sarcoidosis in an appropriate clinical setting, secondly, identify any manifestation to be linked to sarcoidosis at diagnosis work-up and during evolution; thirdly, recognize danger in sarcoidosis and parasarcoidosis syndromes, and finally, diagnose sarcoidosis recovery. Diagnosis is often delayed as presentation may be diverse, non-specific, or atypical. Diagnosis of sarcoidosis is based on three criteria: a compatible presentation; evidence of non-caseating granulomas and exclusion of any alternative diagnosis. However, even when all criteria are fulfilled, the probability of sarcoidosis diagnosis varies from definite to only possible depending upon the presence of more or less characteristic radio-clinical and histopathological findings and on the epidemiological context. Bilateral hilar lymphadenopathy and/or diffuse lung micronodules mainly along lymphatics are the most frequent highly suggestive findings. Evidence of granulomas relies on superficial biopsies of clinically suspected lesion when present or most often by bronchial endoscopy. The diagnosis of sarcoidosis may be difficult in absence of thoracic or skin manifestations and may require the benefit of hindsight before being definitive. Differential diagnoses, mainly tuberculosis, must be considered. The diagnosis of events during evolution relies on serial clinical, pulmonary function, radiographic evaluation and on extrapulmonary manifestations work-up, including electrocardiogram and blood biology. Affected organs need to be related to sarcoidosis using an appropriate diagnostic assessment instrument. To declare the recovery of sarcoidosis, all manifestations must have disappeared spontaneously or after 3-5 years post-treatment without relapse.

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

4.1
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