2023
DOI: 10.1016/j.jdin.2023.06.004
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Diagnostic imaging for eosinophilic fasciitis: A systematic review

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...

Citation Types

0
5
0

Year Published

2023
2023
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
2

Relationship

0
2

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 2 publications
(5 citation statements)
references
References 5 publications
0
5
0
Order By: Relevance
“…3 It is a rare pathology described by Shulman in 1974, characterized by symmetrical full-circumference sclerotic lesions with painful edema in all 4 limbs 1,3 with eosinophilia. [4][5][6] Edema is the most common initial symptom. 7 The criterion standard for confirming the diagnosis involves biopsy from the skin to the fascia.…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%
See 3 more Smart Citations
“…3 It is a rare pathology described by Shulman in 1974, characterized by symmetrical full-circumference sclerotic lesions with painful edema in all 4 limbs 1,3 with eosinophilia. [4][5][6] Edema is the most common initial symptom. 7 The criterion standard for confirming the diagnosis involves biopsy from the skin to the fascia.…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…MRI is typically used, but 18 F-FDG PET/CT also plays an important role in ruling out a paraneoplastic origin for these inflammatory symptoms. 4,6 Patients with this suspected indication may benefit specifically from PET/MRI studies. And also, that in view of the data provided by FDG PET/CT in future MRI may not be needed before biopsy 8 -if indeed so.…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%
See 2 more Smart Citations
“…Thus, US may help either in the diagnostic procedure to choose an area of disease activity and in the follow up to evaluate directly at patient bedside the therapeutic efficacy. [ 2 ] Among imaging methods, magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is probably superior in detecting abnormalities of eosinophilic fasciitis, [ 3 ] but ultrasound is superior overall because it is cost-effective, has virtually no contraindications and is certainly much better accepted by patients, being able to use it from diagnosis to biopsy guide up to the entire follow-up.…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%