4.7 Review

Management of Behcet disease: a systematic literature review for the European League Against Rheumatism evidence-based recommendations for the management of Behcet disease

期刊

ANNALS OF THE RHEUMATIC DISEASES
卷 68, 期 10, 页码 1528-1534

出版社

BMJ PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1136/ard.2008.087957

关键词

-

资金

  1. European League Against Rheumatism

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objectives: To present and analyse the literature sources regarding the management of Behcet disease (BD) identified during the systematic literature research, which formed the basis for the European League Against Rheumatism (EULAR) evidence-based recommendations for the management of BD. Methods: Problem areas and related keywords regarding the management of BD were determined by the multidisciplinary expert committee commissioned by EULAR for developing the recommendations. A systematic literature research was performed using MedLine and Cochrane Library resources through to December 2006. Meta-analyses, systematic reviews, randomised controlled trials (RCTs), open studies, observational studies, case control studies and case series' involving >= 5 patients were included. For each intervention the effect size and number needed to treat were calculated for efficacy. Odds ratios and numbers needed to harm were calculated for safety issues of different treatment modalities where possible. Results: The literature research yielded 137 articles that met the inclusion criteria; 20 of these were RCTs. There was good evidence supporting the use of azathioprine and ciclosporin A in eye involvement and interferon (IFN)alpha in mucocutaneous involvement. There were no RCTs with IFN alpha or tumour necrosis factor (TNF)alpha antagonists in eye involvement. Similarly controlled data for the management of vascular, gastrointestinal and neurological involvement is lacking. Conclusion: Properly designed, controlled studies (new and confirmatory) are still needed to guide us in managing BD.

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