4.6 Article

Spectrum of interstitial lung diseases at a tertiary center in a developing country: A study of 803 subjects

期刊

PLOS ONE
卷 13, 期 2, 页码 -

出版社

PUBLIC LIBRARY SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0191938

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background The spectrum of interstitial lung diseases (ILDs) have mainly been reported from the developed countries; data from developing countries is sparse and conflicting. The aim of this study is to describe the distribution of various ILDs from a developing country. Methods This is an analysis of prospectively collected clinical, radiological and histological data of consecutive subjects (age > 12 years) with ILDs from a single tertiary care medical center. The diagnosis of the specific subtype of ILD was made according to standard criteria for various ILDs. Results A total of 803 subjects (mean age, 50.6 years; 50.2% women) were enrolled between March 2015 to February 2017 of which 566 (70.5%) were diagnosed during the study period (incident cases). Sarcoidosis (42.2%), idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF, 21.2%), connective tissue disease (CTD)-related ILDs (12.7%), hypersensitivity pneumonitis (10.7%), and non-IPF idiopathic interstitial pneumonias (9.2%) were the most common ILDs. The spectrum of ILDs was not significantly different (p = 0.87) between incident and prevalent cases. A histopathological specimen was obtained in 49.9% of the subjects yielding a histologically confirmed diagnosis in 40.6%. A diagnostic procedure was not performed in 402 subjects; the most common reasons were presence of definite usual interstitial pneumonia pattern on high resolution computed tomography and patients' unwillingness to undergo the procedure. Conclusion Sarcoidosis, IPF and CTD-ILDs were the most common ILDs seen at a tertiary center in northern India similar to the spectrum reported from developed countries. More studies are required from developing countries to ascertain the spectrum of ILDs in different geographic locales.

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

4.6
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