Diagnosis and Detection of Sarcoidosis. An Official American Thoracic Society Clinical Practice Guideline

Elliott D. Crouser(American Thoracic Society), Lisa A. Maier(American Thoracic Society), Kevin C. Wilson(American Thoracic Society), Catherine A. Bonham(American Thoracic Society), Adam S. Morgenthau(American Thoracic Society), Karen Patterson(American Thoracic Society), Eric Abston(American Thoracic Society), Richard C. Bernstein(American Thoracic Society), Ron Blankstein(American Thoracic Society), Edward S. Chen(American Thoracic Society), Daniel A. Culver(American Thoracic Society), Wonder P. Drake(American Thoracic Society), Marjolein Drent(American Thoracic Society), Alicia K. Gerke(American Thoracic Society), Michael Ghobrial(American Thoracic Society), Praveen Govender(American Thoracic Society), Nabeel Hamzeh(American Thoracic Society), W. Ennis James(American Thoracic Society), Marc A. Judson(American Thoracic Society), Liz Kellermeyer(American Thoracic Society), Shandra L. Knight(American Thoracic Society), Laura L. Koth(American Thoracic Society), Venerino Poletti(American Thoracic Society), Subha V. Raman(American Thoracic Society), Melissa H. Tukey(American Thoracic Society), Gloria Westney(American Thoracic Society), Robert P. Baughman(American Thoracic Society)
American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine
April 1, 2020
Cited by 1,018Open Access
Full Text

Abstract

Abstract Background The diagnosis of sarcoidosis is not standardized but is based on three major criteria: a compatible clinical presentation, finding nonnecrotizing granulomatous inflammation in one or more tissue samples, and the exclusion of alternative causes of granulomatous disease. There are no universally accepted measures to determine if each diagnostic criterion has been satisfied; therefore, the diagnosis of sarcoidosis is never fully secure. Methods Systematic reviews and, when appropriate, meta-analyses were performed to summarize the best available evidence. The evidence was appraised using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation approach and then discussed by a multidisciplinary panel. Recommendations for or against various diagnostic tests were formulated and graded after the expert panel weighed desirable and undesirable consequences, certainty of estimates, feasibility, and acceptability. Results The clinical presentation, histopathology, and exclusion of alternative diagnoses were summarized. On the basis of the available evidence, the expert committee made 1 strong recommendation for baseline serum calcium testing, 13 conditional recommendations, and 1 best practice statement. All evidence was very low quality. Conclusions The panel used systematic reviews of the evidence to inform clinical recommendations in favor of or against various diagnostic tests in patients with suspected or known sarcoidosis. The evidence and recommendations should be revisited as new evidence becomes available.


Related Papers

No related papers found

Powered by citation graph analysis