4.4 Review

Joint involvement in systemic lupus erythematosus: From pathogenesis to clinical assessment

期刊

SEMINARS IN ARTHRITIS AND RHEUMATISM
卷 47, 期 1, 页码 53-64

出版社

W B SAUNDERS CO-ELSEVIER INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.semarthrit.2017.03.022

关键词

Systemic lupus erythematosus; Joint involvement; Pathogenesis; Biomarkers; Clinimetry; Imaging

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective: In the present review, the different phenotypes, clinimetric and imaging tools able to assess joint involvement in patients affected by Systemic Lupus Erythematosus (SLE) have been described and summarized. Furthermore, the current knowledge about the pathogenic mechanism and the potential biomarkers of this feature is reported. Methods: A literature search was done in PubMed, accessed via the National Library of Medicine PubMed interface (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed). Firstly, PubMed was searched using the term systemic lupus erythematosus OR lupus in combination with (AND) joint OR articular. Secondly, the same PubMed research was combined with other terms, such as pathogenesis OR genetic OR antibodies OR biomarkers OR cytokines OR imaging OR ultrasonography OR magnetic resonance OR clinimetry. Results: After a stringent selection, we evaluated in the present review 13 papers concerning clinical phenotypes of SLE joint involvement, 14 concerning clinimetric assessment, 20 concerning imaging, and finally, 28 concerning pathogenesis and biomarkers. Further relevant data were obtained from the reference lists of articles returned using these search terms and from authors own experience and knowledge of the literature. Conclusion: Despite the prevalence and severity of SLE joint involvement, more awareness and a deeper evaluation of the clinical heterogeneity of this manifestation are mandatory. Moreover, longitudinal studies are needed to assess the progression of this manifestation and to provide standard definitions and examination/recording protocols. (C) 2017 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

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

4.4
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