Scolaris Content Display Scolaris Content Display

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Drugs for discoid lupus erythematosus

Esta versión no es la más reciente

Información

DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD002954.pub2Copiar DOI
Base de datos:
  1. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews
Versión publicada:
  1. 07 octubre 2009see what's new
Tipo:
  1. Intervention
Etapa:
  1. Review
Grupo Editorial Cochrane:
  1. Grupo Cochrane de Piel

Copyright:
  1. Copyright © 2010 The Cochrane Collaboration. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Cifras del artículo

Altmetric:

Citado por:

Citado 0 veces por enlace Crossref Cited-by

Contraer

Autores

  • Sue Jessop

    Correspondencia a: Dermatology, Groote Schuur Hospital, Cape Town, South Africa

    [email protected]

    [email protected]

  • David A Whitelaw

    Internal Medicine, University of Stellenbosch, Tygerberg, South Africa

  • Finola M Delamere

    Centre of Evidence‐Based Dermatology, Cochrane Skin Group, The University of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK

Contributions of authors

SJ :
Design of review, development of search strategy
MEDLINE search (part)
Retrieval and screening of studies
Writing to authors
Entering data
Interpretation (with co‐reviewer)
Writing review

DW:
Development of search strategy
Hand‐searching of index medicus
Electronic searching
Retrieval and screening of studies
Quality appraisal
Analysis and interpretation of data
Capturing of references to additional studies

FD:
Updating of the published review to the new format
Re‐analysing data
Updating search strategies and running searches

Sources of support

Internal sources

  • No support, South Africa.

  • Nottingham University, UK.

External sources

  • No sources of support supplied

Declarations of interest

There are no conflicts of interest.

Acknowledgements

This review was performed with the guidance and assistance of members of the Cochrane Skin Group, Nottingham, UK, in particular Hywel Williams, Finola Delamere, Tina Leonard, and Kayode Adetugbo.

The authors would like to acknowledge Francois Jordaan who was a co‐author on the original version of this review.

The editorial base would like to thank the following people who were the external referees for this review:
Mark Goodfield and Terence Ryan (content experts), and Maxine Whitton (consumer).

Version history

Published

Title

Stage

Authors

Version

2017 May 05

Drugs for discoid lupus erythematosus

Review

Sue Jessop, David A Whitelaw, Matthew J Grainge, Prativa Jayasekera

https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD002954.pub3

2009 Oct 07

Drugs for discoid lupus erythematosus

Review

Sue Jessop, David A Whitelaw, Finola M Delamere

https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD002954.pub2

2009 Jul 08

Drugs for discoid lupus erythematosus

Review

Sue Jessop, Dave Whitelaw, Francois Jordaan

https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD002954

Differences between protocol and review

In the original review there were several changes compared to the published protocol:
Under 'Objectives' the sentence 'To identify the need for further study to make rational clinical decisions possible when treating cutaneous lupus' was omitted from the published review.
Under 'Primary Outcome Measures' we added 'percentage of people with' to our 'complete resolution of skin lesions' and 'clearing of erythema'.
Under 'Methods of the Review' the protocol addressed 'Quality rating of included studies', 'Main analyses' and 'Subgroup analysis' but these were shortened to 'Selection of studies' and 'Data extraction and management' in the published review.

In this 2009 updated version of the review:
The background section has been updated.
Under 'Types of interventions' the following interventions were added: biological agents, including infliximab, rituximab, etanercept, efalizumab, and topical calcineurin antagonists, including tacrolimus, pimecrolimus.
Under 'Search methods...' a section has been added entitled 'Adverse Effects'.
The 'Data collection and analysis' has been written in more detail.
The review has been amended to follow the RevMan recommended headings and the new Handbook guidelines.

PICO

Population
Intervention
Comparison
Outcome

El uso y la enseñanza del modelo PICO están muy extendidos en el ámbito de la atención sanitaria basada en la evidencia para formular preguntas y estrategias de búsqueda y para caracterizar estudios o metanálisis clínicos. PICO son las siglas en inglés de cuatro posibles componentes de una pregunta de investigación: paciente, población o problema; intervención; comparación; desenlace (outcome).

Para saber más sobre el uso del modelo PICO, puede consultar el Manual Cochrane.