CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 762Systemic Lupus Erythematosus ResearchSystemic Sclerosis and Related DiseasesClinical practice guidelines implementation

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 159 of the 164 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

EULAR recommendations for the management of systemic lupus erythematosus. Report of a Task Force of the EULAR Standing Committee for International Clinical Studies Including Therapeutics

Open access
Bertsias, G, Ioannidis, J P A, Boletis, J, Bombardieri, S, Cervera, R, Dostal, C, Font, J, Gilboe, I M, Houssiau, F, Huizinga, T, Isenberg, D, Kallenberg, C G M, Khamashta, M, Piette, J C, Schneider, M, Smolen, J, Sturfelt, G, Tincani, A, van Vollenhoven, R, Gordon, C, Boumpas, D T·2008·Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases
DOI 10.1136/ard.2007.070367
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Objective Systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) is a complex disease with variable presentations, course and prognosis. We sought to develop evidence-based recommendations addressing the major issues in the management of SLE. Methods The EULAR Task Force on SLE comprised 19 specialists and a clinical epidemiologist. Key questions for the management of SLE were compiled using the Delphi technique. A systematic search of PubMed and Cochrane Library Reports was performed using McMaster/Hedges clinical queries' strategies for questions related to the diagnosis, prognosis, monitoring and treatment of SLE. For neuropsychiatric, pregnancy and antiphospholipid syndrome questions, the search was conducted using an array of relevant terms. Evidence was categorised based on sample size and type of design, and the categories of available evidence were identified for each recommendation. The strength of recommendation was assessed based on the category of available evidence, and agreement on the statements was measured across the 19 specialists. Results Twelve questions were generated regarding the prognosis, diagnosis, monitoring and treatment of SLE, including neuropsychiatric SLE, pregnancy, the antiphospholipid syndrome and lupus nephritis. The evidence to support each proposition was evaluated and scored. After discussion and votes, the final recommendations were presented using brief statements. The average agreement among experts was 8.8 out of 10. Conclusion Recommendations for the management of SLE were developed using an evidence-based approach followed by expert consensus with high level of agreement among the experts.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1136/ard.2007.070367

Cites

159 of 159 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Citations

Cites

Show all 164 references

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. 2001, AGREE Instrument., The AGREE collaboration

Cited by

Sorted by citations

See all 762

Related

Metadata

Authors
Bertsias, G., Ioannidis, J. P. A., Boletis, J., Bombardieri, S., Cervera, R., Dostal, C., Font, J., Gilboe, I. M., Houssiau, F., Huizinga, T., Isenberg, D., Kallenberg, C. G. M., Khamashta, M., Piette, J. C., Schneider, M., Smolen, J., Sturfelt, G., Tincani, A., van Vollenhoven, R., Gordon, C., & Boumpas, D. T.
Affiliations
  • University of Crete (GR)
  • University of Ioannina (GR)
  • Laiko General Hospital of Athens (GR)
  • University of Pisa (IT)
  • Hospital Clínic de Barcelona (ES)
  • Oslo University Hospital (NO)
  • Cliniques Universitaires Saint-Luc (BE)
  • Leiden University Medical Center (NL)
  • University College Hospital (GB)
  • University Medical Center Groningen (NL)
  • St Thomas' Hospital (GB)
  • Heinrich Heine University Düsseldorf (DE)
  • Medical University of Vienna (AT)
  • Lund University (SE)
  • Azienda Socio Sanitaria Territoriale degli Spedali Civili di Brescia (IT)
  • University of Birmingham (GB)
Corresponding author
Boumpas, D T
ORCID
Venue
Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2008-02
Volume
67
Issue
2
Pages
195-205
ISSN
0003-4967 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1136/ard.2007.070367
OpenAlex
W2157038471
Cited by
762
References
164
Citations by year
2026: 14 · 2025: 17 · 2024: 19 · 2023: 26 · 2022: 19 · 2021: 58 · 2020: 56 · 2019: 53 · 2018: 70 · 2017: 62 · 2016: 47 · 2015: 53 · 2014: 43 · 2013: 53 · 2012: 46
FWCI
18.49
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Digital Access to Libraries (Université catholique de Louvain (UCL), l'Université de Namur (UNamur) and the Université Saint-Louis (USL-B)) (submittedVersion)
  • Institutional Research Information System (Università degli Studi di Brescia) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • Lund University Publications (Lund University) (submittedVersion)
  • HighWire Press Open Archive (submittedVersion)
  • University of Birmingham Research Portal (University of Birmingham) (submittedVersion)
  • University of Groningen research database (University of Groningen / Centre for Information Technology) (submittedVersion)
Funders
University of Crete
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Rheumatology › Systemic Lupus Erythematosus Research
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Rheumatology › Systemic Sclerosis and Related Diseases
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Clinical practice guidelines implementation
Keywords
systemic lupus erythematosus, clinical management, diagnosis, prognosis, disease surveillance, treatment, neuropsychiatric lupus, pregnancy, antiphospholipid syndrome, lupus nephritis, evidence-based recommendations, expert consensus
MeSH terms
Female, Humans, Lupus Erythematosus, Systemic, Lupus Nephritis, Male, Pregnancy, Pregnancy Complications, Antiphospholipid Syndrome, Evidence-Based Medicine

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review