Dataset Information

Sarcoidosis Diagnostic Score: A Systematic Evaluation to Enhance the Diagnosis of Sarcoidosis.

ABSTRACT:

Background

The diagnosis of sarcoidosis is made by the combination of clinical features and biopsy results. The clinical features of sarcoidosis can be quite variable. We developed a Sarcoidosis Diagnostic Score (SDS) to summarize the clinical features of patients with possible sarcoidosis.

Methods

Biopsy-confirmed patients with sarcoidosis seen during a 7-month period at the University of Cincinnati sarcoidosis clinic were prospectively identified. Patients with nonsarcoidosis seen at the same clinic were used as control patients. Using a modified World Association of Sarcoidosis and Other Granulomatous Disorders organ assessment instrument, we scored all patients for presence of biopsy, ≥1 highly probable symptom, and ≥1 at least probable symptom for each area. Two sarcoidosis scores were generated: SDS biopsy (with biopsy) and SDS clinical (without biopsy).

Results

The 980 evaluable patients were divided into two cohorts: an initial 600 patients (450 with biopsy-confirmed sarcoidosis, 150 control patients) to establish cutoff values for SDS biopsy and an SDS clinical and a validation cohort of 380 patients (103 biopsy-confirmed patients with sarcoidosis and 277 control patients). The best cutoff value for SDS biopsy was ≥ 6 (sensitivity, 99.3%; specificity, 100%). For the total the 980 patients, an SDS clinical ≥ 3 had a sensitivity of 90.6%, specificity of 88.5%, and a likelihood ratio of 7.9. An SDS clinical score ≥ 4 had a lower sensitivity of (76.9%) but higher specificity (98.6%).

Conclusions

For sarcoidosis, the presence of specific clinical features, especially multiorgan involvement, can enhance the diagnostic certainty. The SDS scoring system quantitated the clinical features consistent with sarcoidosis.

SUBMITTER: Bickett AN

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6859250 | biostudies-literature | 2018 Nov

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Sarcoidosis Diagnostic Score: A Systematic Evaluation to Enhance the Diagnosis of Sarcoidosis.

Bickett Alexandra N AN Lower Elyse E EE Baughman Robert P RP

Chest 20180517 5

<h4>Background</h4>The diagnosis of sarcoidosis is made by the combination of clinical features and biopsy results. The clinical features of sarcoidosis can be quite variable. We developed a Sarcoidosis Diagnostic Score (SDS) to summarize the clinical features of patients with possible sarcoidosis.<h4>Methods</h4>Biopsy-confirmed patients with sarcoidosis seen during a 7-month period at the University of Cincinnati sarcoidosis clinic were prospectively identified. Patients with nonsarcoidosis se ...[more]

PMID: 29778660

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundThe ability of high-definition (HD) videobronchoscopy to detect airway involvement in sarcoidosis has not been evaluated previously.Research questionWhat is the role of HD videobronchoscopy in the identification of sarcoidosis-associated airway abnormalities (AAs)? What are the patterns of AAs more commonly observed and more frequently associated with the detection of granulomas in endobronchial biopsy (EBB)?Study design and methodsIn this prospective international multicenter cohort study, consecutive patients with suspected sarcoidosis underwent airway inspection with an HD videobronchoscope and EBB using a standardized workflow. AAs were classified according to six patterns defined a priori: nodularity, cobblestoning, thickening, plaque, increased vascularity, and miscellaneous. We assessed diagnostic yield of EBB, prevalence of AAs, and interobserver agreement for different patterns of AAs.ResultsAAs were identified in 64 of 134 patients with sarcoidosis (47.8%), with nodularity (n = 23 [17.2%]), plaque (n = 19 [14.2%]), and increased vascularity (n = 19 [14.2%]) being the most prevalent. The diagnostic yield of EBB was 36.6%. AAs were significantly more prevalent in patients with than in those without nonnecrotizing granulomas on EBB (67.4% vs 36.5%; P = .001). Likewise, parenchymal disease on CT scan imaging was significantly more common in patients with than in those without nonnecrotizing granulomas on EBB (79.6% vs 54.1%; P = .003). On a per-lesion analysis, nonnecrotizing granulomas were seen especially in EBB samples obtained from areas of cobblestoning (9/10 [90%]) and nodularity (17/29 [58.6%]). The overall diagnostic yield of random EBB was low (31/134 [23.1%]). The interobserver agreement for the different patterns of AA was fair (Fleiss κ = 0.34).InterpretationIn a population with a large prevalence of White Europeans, HD videobronchoscopy detected AAs in approximately one-half of patients with sarcoidosis. The diagnostic yield of EBB was higher in patients with parenchymal involvement on CT scan imaging and in those with AAs, especially if manifesting as cobblestoning and nodularity.Trial registryClinicalTrials.gov; No.: NCT4743596; URL: www.Clinicaltrialsgov.

Project description:BackgroundSarcoidosis is a chronic inflammatory granulomatous disease of unknown cause. Delays in diagnosis can result in disease progression and poorer outcomes for patients. Our aim was to review the current literature to determine the overall diagnostic delay of sarcoidosis, factors associated with diagnostic delay, and the experiences of people with sarcoidosis of diagnostic delay.MethodsThree databases (PubMed/Medline, Scopus, and ProQuest) and grey literature sources were searched. Random effects inverse variance meta-analysis was used to pool mean diagnostic delay in all types of sarcoidosis subgroup analysis. Diagnostic delay was defined as the time from reported onset of symptoms to diagnosis of sarcoidosis.ResultsWe identified 374 titles, of which 29 studies were included in the review, with an overall sample of 1531 (694 females, 837 males). The overall mean diagnostic delay in all types of sarcoidosis was 7.93 months (95% CI 1.21 to 14.64 months). Meta-aggregation of factors related to diagnostic delay in the included studies identified three categories: (1) the complex and rare features of sarcoidosis, (2) healthcare factors and (3) patient-centred factors. Meta-aggregation of outcomes reported in case studies revealed that the three most frequent outcomes associated with diagnostic delay were: (1) incorrect diagnosis, (2) incorrect treatment and (3) development of complications/disease progression. There was no significant difference in diagnostic delay between countries with gatekeeper health systems (where consumers are referred from a primary care clinician to specialist care) and countries with non-gatekeeper systems. No qualitative studies examining people's experiences of diagnostic delay were identified.ConclusionThe mean diagnostic delay for sarcoidosis is almost 8 months, which has objective consequences for patient management. On the other hand, there is a paucity of evidence about the experience of diagnostic delay in sarcoidosis and factors related to this. Gaining an understanding of people's experiences while seeking a diagnosis of sarcoidosis is vital to gain insight into factors that may contribute to delays, and subsequently inform strategies, tools and training activities aimed at increasing clinician and public awareness about this rare condition.Trial registrationPROSPERO Registration number: CRD42022307236.

Project description:IntroductionSarcoidosis is a rare systemic inflammatory granulomatous disease of unknown cause. It can manifest in any organ. The incidence of sarcoidosis varies across countries, and by ethnicity and gender. Delays in the diagnosis of sarcoidosis can lead to extension of the disease and organ impairment. Diagnosis delay is attributed in part to the lack of a single diagnostic test or unified commonly used diagnostic criteria, and to the diversity of disease manifestations and symptom load. There is a paucity of evidence examining the determinants of diagnostic delay in sarcoidosis and the experiences of people with sarcoidosis related to delayed diagnosis. We aim to systematically review available evidence about diagnostic delay in sarcoidosis to elucidate the factors associated with diagnostic delay for this disease in different contexts and settings, and the consequences for people with sarcoidosis.Methods and analysisA systematic search of the literature will be conducted using PubMed/Medline, Scopus, and ProQuest databases, and sources of grey literature, up to 25th of May 2022, with no limitations on publication date. We will include all study types (qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods) except review articles, examining diagnostic delay, incorrect diagnosis, missed diagnosis or slow diagnosis of all types of sarcoidosis across all age groups. We will also examine evidence of patients' experiences associated with diagnostic delay. Only studies in English, German and Indonesian will be included. The outcomes we examine will be diagnostic delay time, patients' experiences, and factors associated with diagnostic delay in sarcoidosis. Two people will independently screen the titles and abstracts of search results, and then the remaining full-text documents against the inclusion criteria. Disagreements will be resolved with a third reviewer until consensus is reached. Selected studies will be appraised using the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool (MMAT). A meta-analysis and subgroup analyses of quantitative data will be conducted. Meta-aggregation methods will be used to analyse qualitative data. If there is insufficient data for these analyses, a narrative synthesis will be conducted.DiscussionThis review will provide systematic and integrated evidence on the diagnostic delay, associated factors, and experiences of diagnosis delay among people with all types of sarcoidosis. This knowledge may shed light on ways to improve diagnosis delays in diagnosis across different subpopulations, and with different disease presentations.Ethics and disseminationEthical approval will not be required as no human recruitment or participation will be involved. Findings of the study will be disseminated through publications in peer-reviewed journals, conferences, and symposia.Trial registrationPROSPERO Registration number: CRD42022307236. URL of the PROSPERO registration: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPEROFILES/307236_PROTOCOL_20220127.pdf.

Dataset Information

Sarcoidosis Diagnostic Score: A Systematic Evaluation to Enhance the Diagnosis of Sarcoidosis.

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Publications

Sarcoidosis Diagnostic Score: A Systematic Evaluation to Enhance the Diagnosis of Sarcoidosis.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets