Level D· Scientific groundwork from lab and animal studiesNarrative ReviewEurope PMC

Evidence-based management of Raynaud's phenomenon

Herrick AL.

Narrative Review on Systemic / IV, published in Ther Adv Musculoskelet Dis (2017) — summary generated from the PubMed abstract.

Open my reading list
Level D· Scientific groundwork from lab and animal studiesEvidence level of this study

Evidence from laboratory and animal studies provides groundwork for understanding mechanisms and potential before human studies continue.

  • Level A · Stronger Clinical Evidence
  • Level B · Emerging clinical evidence with positive signals
  • Level C · Early human research exploring benefits
  • Level D · Scientific groundwork from lab and animal studies
  • Emerging · Emerging topic under active research
Read the A–D evidence level guide

This page is generated from the PubMed record. The Thai description is an automated summary of bibliographic fields and the abstract, not a full translation, and is not medical advice.

Study type
Narrative Review
Journal
Ther Adv Musculoskelet Dis (2017)
Reported sample size
—
Source database
Europe PMC
PMID
29201156
PMCID
PMC5700788
DOI
10.1177/1759720x17740074
Citations
28

Abstract (original English)

Raynaud's phenomenon (RP) is relevant to the rheumatologist because it may signify an underlying connective tissue disease and also because it can be very challenging to treat, especially when it has progressed to digital ulceration or critical ischaemia. This review article discusses diagnosis (does this patient have an underlying connective tissue disease?), including the role for nailfold capillaroscopy, and treatment. Management of 'uncomplicated' RP is first described and then treatment of RP complicated by progression to digital ulceration or critical ischaemia, highlighting recent advances (including phosphodiesterase type 5 inhibition, and endothelin 1 receptor antagonism) and the evidence base underpinning these. Possible future therapies are briefly discussed.

What this study does not prove

  • • This study does not prove SVF is an approved treatment or a replacement for standard care.
  • • This is a narrative review: it collects no new patient data and does not systematically appraise evidence quality.

Evidence level

Evidence from laboratory and animal studies provides groundwork for understanding mechanisms and potential before human studies continue.

How we grade evidence

Browse all related research

Filter the research library by this study's title keywords, author, or publication year.

Related research