186,315 research outputs found

    Reviewed diagnosis of primary and secondary immune thrombocytopenic purpura in 79 adult patients hospitalized in 2000-2002

    No full text
    Despite the accepted distinction between primary and secondary immune thrombocytopenic purpura (ITP), a systematic analysis of the incidence of secondary ITP is not available. The present study was aimed at verifying the frequency and, consequently, the approximate rates of prevalence and incidence of secondary ITP and analysing its clinical and laboratory characteristics in patients needing ordinary hospital treatment for ITP. The study was based on 79 consecutive, adult ITP patients admitted to three Italian hospitals in 2000-2002. Using data collected in a previous study on the appropriateness of hospital management of ITP, we evaluated the frequency of secondary ITP, with the diagnosis formulated on the basis of new acquisitions, derived its rates of prevalence and incidence, and examined the available clinical and laboratory parameters. At our case review, a diagnosis of secondary ITP could be formulated in 38% of the 79 patients. This frequency was significantly higher than that determined at the time the patients were discharged from hospital (13.9%) (P = 0.000). The derived rates of prevalence and incidence of secondary ITP in the general population were, respectively, 2.3 and 1.23 per 100 000 inhabitants per year. In comparison with patients with primary ITP, those with a secondary form more frequently had spleen enlargement (P = 0.000), hepatomegaly (P = 0.001) and lower haemoglobin values (P = 0.005). The high frequency of secondary ITP must be mainly attributed to the currently available knowledge about the nature of some forms of ITP. Particular contributors to the high frequency were cases secondary to infections and those observed in patients who had undergone bone marrow or solid organ transplantation. Some clinical and laboratory alterations appear to be more frequent in secondary ITP than in primary ITP. However, the importance that the identification of particular forms of ITP, such as those secondary to Helicobacter pylori or hepatitis C virus infections, has on the choice of treatment suggests that these conditions must be ascertained independently of the presence or absence of clinical and laboratory alteration

    Cryoglobulinaemias: a multi-centre study of the early clinical and laboratory manifestations of primary and secondary disease. GISC. Italian Group for the Study of Cryoglobulinaemias

    No full text
    In a multi-centre retrospective study, we compared clinical and laboratory data in 913 patients with cryoglobulinaemias, divided as: (i) essential cryoglobulinaemias; (ii) cryoglobulinaemias secondary to connective tissue diseases (CTD), lymphoproliferative or other haematological diseases (LPD), chronic liver diseases (CLD), and 'other diseases'. Purpura was the commonest presenting feature in all groups and was more common in essential cryoglobulinaemias (p3% (p<0.0001), C4<15mg/dl (p<0.001), HBsAg prevalence (p<0.01) and purpura (p<0.05). Despite the high prevalence of HCV markers in all groups, the role of HCV in essential cryoglobulinaemia is not well defined; HBV seems to play only a marginal role

    Going Beyond Counting First Authors in Author Co-citation Analysis

    No full text
    The present study examines one of the fundamental aspects of author co-citation analysis (ACA) - the way co-citation counts are defined. Co-citation counting provides the data on which all subsequent statistical analyses and mappings are based, and we compare ACA results based on two different types of co-citation counting - the traditional type that only counts the first one among a cited work's authors on the one hand and a non-traditional type that takes into account the first 5 authors of a cited work on the other hand. Results indicate that the picture produced through this non-traditional author co-citation counting contains more coherent author groups and is therefore considerably clearer. However, this picture represents fewer specialties in the research field being studied than that produced through the traditional first-author co-citation counting when the same number of top-ranked authors is selected and analyzed. Reasons for these effects are discussed
    corecore