Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Fix Jurnal Endo
Fix Jurnal Endo
Fix Jurnal Endo
READING
ENDOCRINOLOGI
Evolution of Hashimoto
thyroiditis in children with type 1
diabetes mellitus (TIDM)
Feneli Karachaliou*, Nikitas Skarakis, Evangelia Bountouvi, Theodora Spyropoulou, Eleni Tsintzou,
Aristofania Simatou and Vassiliki Papaevangelou
Criticized by
Muhammad Mustaqiblat
ABSTRACT
Objectives: Treatment of children with Hashimoto thyroiditis (HT) and
particularly of those with coexistent diabetes mellitus type 1 (TIDM)
and normal/mildly elevated serum TSH is controversial. The aim of the
study was to evaluate the natural course of HT in children with TIDM
compared with children with no other coexistent autoimmunity and
investigate for possible predictive factors of thyroid function
deterioration.
Methods: Data from 96 children with HT, 32 with T1DM (23 girls, nine
boys) mean (sd) age: 10.6 (2.3) years, and 64 age and sex-matched
without T1DΜ (46 girls, 18 boys), mean (sd) age: 10.2 (2.9) years were
evaluated retrospectively. They all had fT4 and TSH values within
normal ranges and available data for at least three years’ follow-up
Results: During the follow-up period, 11 children (34.4%) with TIDM
exhibited subclinical hypothyroidism and two children (6.2%)
progressed to overt hypothyroidism compared to 12 (18.8%) and two
(3.1%) among children without TIDM, respectively. Among children with
HT, a higher percentage (40.6%) of children with T1DM progressed to
subclinical or overt hypothyroidism, compared with children (21.9%)
with similar characteristics but without TIDM or other coexistent
autoimmunity.
The statistical analysis of the data was performed using the SPSS
statistical software
RESULTS
no
differences
not
significant
difference
significantly
No
significantly
not
signifi
cant
significant
DISCUSSION
• In this retrospective study on the evolution of HT,
This
73.4% of initially euthyroid children remained
euthyroid, whereas 21.9 and 4.7% progressed to
subclinical and overt hypothyroidism,
Other
64.5% of patients with HT remained or became
euthyroid without treatment. Finally in a more recent
study on a larger population [15], only 57.1% of
study
criticized by
Muhammad Mustaqiblat
WORKSHEET FOR DIAGNOSTIC PREDICTION TEST
I. Validity
Is this Evidence about diagnostic prediction Valid ??
1. Was there an independent, blind comparison with a reference standard?
Is reference standard used acceptable?
Were both reference standard and test applied to all patients?
[ v] Yes [ ] No [ ] Can't Tell
2. Did the patient sample include an appropriate spectrum of
patients to whom the diagnostic test will be applied in clinical
practice?
[ v] Yes [ ] No [ ] Can't Tell
18
WORKSHEET FOR DIAGNOSTIC PREDICTION TEST
Is this Evidence about diagnostic prediction Valid ??
3. Did the results of the test being evaluated influence the decision
to perform the reference standard? "Verification" or "work-up"
bias?
[ ] Yes [ ] No [ v] Can't Tell
4. Were the methods for performing the test
described in sufficient detail to permit replication?
Preparation of patient?
Performance of test?
Analysis and interpretation of results?
[v ] Yes [ ] No [ ] Can't Tell
5. Overall, are the results of the study valid?
[ v] Yes [ ] No [ ] Can't Tell
19
WORKSHEET FOR DIAGNOSTIC PREDICTION TESTS
II. Important
Are the valid results clinically important /relevant ???
20
WORKSHEET FOR DIAGNOSTIC PREDICTION TESTS
III. APPLICABILITY
Can we apply this Valid, Important Evidence about diagnostic
prediction to our patient ???
1. Are the study patients similar to our own?
[v ] Yes [ ] No [ ] Can't Tell
2. Are the results applicable to our patient?
Compelling reasons why the results should not be applied?
[ v ] Yes [ ] No [ ] Can't Tell
3. Will the results change my management?
[ ] Yes [v ] No [ ] Can't Tell
Level of evidence dan
Recommendation Grades:
Level of evidence Recommendation Grades
• Level 1: Systematic review/meta-analysis. • Grade A : Strongly recommended
• Level 2: At least 1 randomized controlled because the scientific basis is strong.
trial (RCT). • Grade B : Recommended because
• Level 3: A non-RCT prospective cohort there is some scientific basis.
study with controls. • Grade C1 : Recommended despite
• Level 4: An analytical epidemiologic _cohort having only a weak scientific basis.
study or case-control_ study or single-arm • Grade C2 : Not recommended because
intervention study (no controls). there is only a weak scientific basis.
• Level 5: A descriptive study_case report or • Grade D: Not recommended because
case series). scientific evidence shows treatment to
• Level 6: Opinion of an expert committee or be ineffective or harmful.
an individual expert, which is not based on
patient data.
Conclusion
Citation : Evolution of Hashimoto thyroiditis in children with
type 1 diabetes mellitus (TIDM)
Feneli Karachaliou*, Nikitas Skarakis, Evangelia Bountouvi, Theodora Spyropoulou, Eleni Tsintzou,
Aristofania Simatou and Vassiliki Papaevangelou