Comment on: Nailfold capillaries and myositis-specific antibodies in anti-melanoma differentiation-associated gene 5 antibody-positive DM. Reply
Comment on: Nailfold capillaries and myositis-specific antibodies in anti-melanoma differentiation-associated gene 5 antibody-positive DM. Reply
复制标题
点评：抗黑色素瘤分化相关基因5抗体阳性DM中的甲襞毛细血管和肌炎特异性抗体。
DOI：
10.1093/rheumatology/keab822
复制
发表时间：
2022
期刊：
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
Eiji Sugiyama
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Tomohiro Sugimoto;Sho Mokuda;Hiroki Kohno;Michinori Ishitoku;Kei Araki;Hirofumi Watanabe;Tadahiro Tokunaga;Yusuke Yoshida;Shintaro Hirata;Eiji Sugiyama
亲爱的编辑，我们很高兴松田等人阅读了我们的论文并给了我们他们的意见[1]。我们知道他们关注三件事。首先，我们的甲襞视频毛细血管镜检查（NVC）评分汇总了多个发现，这可能低估了每个项目。其次，在我们的病例组中，有可能出现RA并发症，甲襞毛细血管异常的结果可能会改变。第三，在以前的报道中，包括他们的研究，甲襞毛细血管异常越强，疾病活动性越高，这与我们的结果不同。我们将依次回复每一条评论。首先，我们的NVC评分计算为所有毛细血管扩张、巨大毛细血管和出血的总和[2]。该信函的作者担心出血结果可能被低估。响应于此，我们想要呈现图1A-I。此外，我们的检测结果显示，在所有毛细血管增大、巨大毛细血管和出血的发现中，MDA 5滴度、铁蛋白水平和FVC水平之间的关系趋势相似。因此，通过总结调查结果，并不是低估了每个项目。
DEAR EDITOR, We are pleased that Matsuda et al. have read our paper and given us their opinions [1]. We understand that they are concerned about three things. First, our nailfold video-capillaroscopy (NVC) score sums multiple findings, which may underestimate each item. Second, there is a possibility of a complication of RA in our case group, and the result of nailfold capillary abnormalities may change. Third, in previous reports, including their studies, the stronger the nailfold capillary abnormality, the higher the disease activity, which is different from our results. We will reply to each comment in turn.First, our NVC score was calculated as the sum of all enlarged capillaries, giant capillaries and haemorrhages [2]. The authors of the letter were concerned that the haemorrhage findings might have been underestimated. In response to this, we would like to present Fig. 1A–I. In addition, our test results showed similar trends in the relationship between MDA5 titre, ferritin level and FVC level in all the findings of enlarged capillaries, giant capillaries and haemorrhages. Therefore, it is not the fact that each item was underestimated by summing up the findings.