Evidence map›Paper›PMID 10201411›Full record

ReviewJournal of neurology, neurosurgery, and psychiatry1999

Neurology and the skin.

O Hurko, T T Provost

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Journal of neurology, neurosurgery, and psychiatry, 1999. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Review
  4. Cutaneous vasculitis.Current rheumatology reports · 2005
    Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

O HurkoNeuroscience Research, SmithKline Beecham Pharmaceuticals, Harlow, Essex, UK. Orest_2_Hurko@sbphrd.com
T T Provost

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

As knowledge of pathophysiology grows, so does the refinement of diagnoses. Sometimes increased knowledge permits consolidation and unification. Unfortunately, at our present level of understanding, it usually demands proliferation of diagnostic categories. As tedious as this diagnostic splintering may seem, such is the price currently exacted of both the investigator and the clinician who seek to optimise management. Increased diagnostic refinement often requires inquiry into matters outside the bounds of one's specialty. Most often we turn to the radiologist or to the laboratory to narrow the differential diagnosis generated from the history and neurological examination. As we have shown, a useful intermediate step is extension of the physical examination to organs such as the skin, which are not the traditional preserve of the neurologist. That any text could confer the sophistication required for expert dermatological diagnosis is an unrealistic expectation. However, we hope that this review will encourage careful examination of the skin, hair, and nails by the neurological practitioner, with consideration of referral to a dermatologist when greater expertise is required.

Indexed as

Cerebrovascular DisordersHumansMelanomaNervous System DiseasesSkin DiseasesSkin Neoplasms

Identifiers

PMID10201411
PMCPMC1736315

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.