MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W2056284870 · doi:10.1002/art.38498

A82: Lyme Arthritis: an Emerging Clinical Problem in Nova Scotia, Canada

2014· article· en· W2056284870 sur OpenAlexaffabout
Pier Diane Glaude, Adam M. Huber, Timothy Mailman, Suzanne Ramsey, Bianca Lang, Elizabeth Stringer

Notice bibliographique

RevueArthritis & Rheumatology · 2014
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineMedicine
ThématiqueMusculoskeletal Disorders and Rehabilitation
Établissements canadiensDalhousie UniversityIzaak Walton Killam Health Centre
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésNova scotiaNova (rocket)LYMELyme diseaseMedicineGeographyBorrelia burgdorferiVirologyEngineeringImmunologyArchaeologyAeronautics

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Background/Purpose: Lyme disease (LD) is an emerging problem in the Canadian province of Nova Scotia with a sharp rise in reported cases over the past 2 years, including cases referred to the pediatric rheumatology clinic in Halifax, the sole pediatric rheumatology referral centre in the province. This increase is likely related to an increase in the number and size of endemic areas in the province; it is expected that cases will continue to rise. We sought to characterize the demographics, clinical presentation, treatment course and musculoskeletal outcome of children with LD in our clinic. Methods: Subjects with a diagnosis of LD since 2008 were identified in the pediatric rheumatology clinic database. The medical records of patients with LD were reviewed for demographic variables, referral patterns, clinical presentation, investigations, treatment course, and outcome. Results: Seventeen patients were identified; all patients were referred for evaluation of arthritis. 76% of patients presented in 2012 and 2013. Median age was 11.5 years (2.6–15.8), 16 were male. All lived in known endemic areas with Lunenburg county being most common (59%); 76% did not recall a tick bite. Subjects were referred by their family physician (7), emergency department (4), orthopedic surgery (4), and infectious diseases (2). The median number of physician visits for MSK symptoms prior to rheumatology consult was 2 (range 1 to >5). Only one patient was referred with a known diagnosis of LD; LD was suspected in 37.5% of the remaining cases based on referral information. Six patients had prior joint aspiration, 2 of whom were treated for septic arthritis. Pain and/or swelling were reported by all patients; in those with swelling 47% were persistent/53% episodic. The median number of joints involved was 1, with 94% having knee involvement. Patients reported MSK–symptoms for a median of 2 months (range 0.1–11) prior to referral to rheumatology. Four patients had a history of neurologic manifestations of LD prior to MSK presentation, none of which were recognized as LD. ECG was done in 13 cases and was normal. Three patients had a history of erythema migrans. 14/17 patients have completed antibiotic treatment. Arthritis resolved in 50% of patients after 1 course of antibiotics and 29% after 2 courses. A third course of antibiotics was required in 21% of patients for persistent arthritis. Two patients continued to have arthritis following completion of antibiotic therapy. At a median of 5 months (range 0–50) following treatment, there are 2 patients with persistent synovitis and functional limitations; one having evidence of joint damage despite extensive arthritis treatment (NSAID, steroid injection, DMARDs and a biologic). Conclusion: Increasing numbers of children with Lyme arthritis are being seen in the pediatric rheumatology clinic in Nova Scotia. LD was not considered as a diagnosis in the majority of cases by the referring physician. A quarter of patients also had a history of unrecognized neurologic manifestations of LD. In keeping with published North American reports, most patients had an excellent outcome however a proportion continued to have arthritis and disability following antibiotic therapy.

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction distillée sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,001
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Observationnel · Signal consensuel: Observationnel
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,498
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,854

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0010,001
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0010,000
Bibliométrie0,0000,000
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0000,000
Communication savante0,0000,000
Science ouverte0,0000,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0000,000
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0000,000

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,012
Tête enseignante GPT0,297
Écart entre enseignants0,285 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.

Les modèles n’ont appliqué aucune catégorie : rien dans la taxonomie ne correspondait à ce travail.
Devis d'étudeObservationnel
Domainenon disponible
GenreEmpirique

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations1
Publié2014
Routes d'admission2
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueArthritis & RheumatologyMême sujetMusculoskeletal Disorders and RehabilitationTravaux en français237 207