Search

Copyright of Namık Kemal Tıp Dergisi is the property of Galenos Yayinevi Tic. LTD. STI and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Objective: Scientific progress can be directly measured by the growth of the scientific archive. To our knowledge, there has never been a systematic evaluation of the number and properties of the publications of rheumatologists. In this paper, we aimed to evaluate the properties of these papers. Material and Methods: All papers that were published between 2000 and 2011 by at least one rheumatologist author and that were indexed in Science Citation Index Expanded were evaluated. For this purpose, we used the ISI web of knowledge web of science software. Results: Original articles were the most common document type. Most of the papers were published in rheumatology journals. From the point of the number of published papers, the top 3 countries were United States, England, and Germany; the top 3 journals were Annals of Rheumatic Diseases, Rheumatology, and Arthritis and Rheumatism, and the top 3 institutes are Harvard University, Leiden University, and The Imperial College of Science, Technology. Moreover, the publications of rheumatologists increased annually between 2000 and 2011. Conclusion: This paper is an overview of the publications of rheumatologists between 2000 and 2011.The results indicate an increasing trend of scientific productivity for rheumatologists. The outcomes about countries, institutions, and journals are in concordance with the general medical publication trends. More than half of the publications written by rheumatologist were published by rheumatology journals. We consider only quantitative data about publications; new research is required to qualitatively evaluate the data. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background. Systemic amyloidosis is a potentially fatal condition, unless diagnosed and treated before development of irreversible organ damage. Demonstration of amyloid deposits within tissue biopsies is only definitive diagnostic method, which makes appropriate selection of biopsy site essential. Herein, we evaluated efficacy of minimally invasive minor salivary gland biopsy (MSGB) for the diagnosis of amyloidosis. Methods. We analyzed 37 biopsies taken from 35 patients. Suggestive findings for amyloidosis were significant proteinuria, renal impairment, refractory diarrhea, neuropathy, and restrictive cardiomyopathy. Minor salivary gland was the initial biopsy site in all subjects. When MSGB was negative but there was a high suspicion for amyloidosis, a kidney, duodenum, or rectal biopsy was performed for further investigation. Results. Mean age of patients was 45.4 and 21 were female. In 11 patients amyloidosis was diagnosed with MSGB. In overall 18 patients were diagnosed with amyloidosis. Sixteen of them were identified as being of AA type and two were AL type amyloidosis. The sensitivity of minimally invasive MSGB is 61.1% for diagnosing amyloidosis in this study. Conclusion. MSGB is a safe and simple method for the diagnosis of amyloidosis which can be performed in an outpatient setting. We suggest extensive use of this minimally invasive method. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]