Objective To investigate the effect of an additional review based on reporting guidelines such as STROBE and CONSORT on quality of manuscripts.Design Masked randomised trial.Population Original research manuscripts submitted to the Medicina Clínica journal from May 2008 to April 2009 and considered suitable for publication.Intervention Control group: conventional peer reviews alone. Intervention group: conventional review plus an additional review looking for missing items from reporting guidelines.Outcomes Manuscript quality, assessed with a 5 point Likert scale (primary: overall quality; secondary: average quality of specific items in paper). Main analysis compared groups as allocated, after adjustment for baseline factors (analysis of covariance); sensitivity analysis compared groups as reviewed. Adherence to reviewer suggestions assessed with Likert scale.Results Of 126 consecutive papers receiving conventional review, 34 were not suitable for publication. The remaining 92 papers were allocated to receive conventional reviews alone (n=41) or additional reviews (n=51). Four papers assigned to the conventional review group deviated from protocol; they received an additional review based on reporting guidelines. We saw an improvement in manuscript quality in favour of the additional review group (comparison as allocated, 0.25, 95% confidence interval –0.05 to 0.54; as reviewed, 0.33, 0.03 to 0.63). More papers with additional reviews than with conventional reviews alone improved from baseline (22 (43%) v eight (20%), difference 23.6% (3.2% to 44.0%), number needed to treat 4.2 (from 2.3 to 31.2), relative risk 2.21 (1.10 to 4.44)). Authors in the additional review group adhered more to suggestions from conventional reviews than to those from additional reviews (average increase 0.43 Likert points (0.19 to 0.67)).Conclusions Additional reviews based on reporting guidelines improve manuscript quality, although the observed effect was smaller than hypothesised and not definitively demonstrated. Authors adhere more to suggestions from conventional reviews than to those from additional reviews, showing difficulties in adhering to high methodological standards at the latest research phases. To boost paper quality and impact, authors should be aware of future requirements of reporting guidelines at the very beginning of their study. Trial registration and protocol Although registries do not include trials of peer review, the protocol design was submitted to sponsored research projects (Instituto de Salud Carlos III, PI081903).

To evaluate systemic involvement in primary SS in a large cohort of Spanish patients using the EULAR-SS disease activity index (ESSDAI) definitions. Systemic involvement was characterized using ESSDAI definitions for the 10 clinical domains (constitutional, lymphadenopathy, glandular, articular, cutaneous, pulmonary, renal, peripheral nervous system, central nervous system and muscular). ESSDAI scores at diagnosis, during follow-up and cumulated at the last visit were calculated. The cohort consisted of 921 patients. After a mean follow-up of 75 months, 77 (8%) patients still had an ESSDAI score of zero at the last visit. Organ by organ, the percentage of patients who developed activity during the follow-up (ESSDAI score ≥ 1 at any time) ranged between 1.4% and 56%, with articular, pulmonary and peripheral neurological involvement being the most common. Logistic multivariate regression analysis showed the following features at diagnosis and had the closest association with systemic activity (statistically significant independent variables in at least two domains): cryoglobulinaemia in five domains; anaemia, lymphopenia and low C3 levels in three domains each and age <35 years in two domains. Sicca features, ANA and RF at diagnosis were not associated with a higher cumulated activity score in any clinical domain. Primary SS is undeniably a systemic disease, with the joints, lungs, skin and peripheral nerves being the most frequently involved organs. Cytopenias, hypocomplementaemia and cryoglobulinaemia at diagnosis strongly correlated with higher cumulated ESSDAI scores in the clinical domains. Clinically the ESSDAI provides a reliable picture of systemic involvement in primary SS.

Objective To score systemic activity at diagnosis and correlate baseline activity with survival in a large cohort of patients with primary Sjögren syndrome (SS). Patients and methods We include 1045 consecutive patients who fulfilled the 2002 classification criteria for primary SS. The clinical and immunological characteristics and level of activity (EULAR-SS Disease Activity Index (ESSDAI) scores) were assessed at diagnosis as predictors of death using Cox proportional hazards regression analysis adjusted for age at diagnosis. The risk of death was calculated at diagnosis according to four different predictive models. Results After a mean follow-up of 117 months, 115 (11%) patients died. The adjusted standardised mortality ratio for the total cohort was 4.66 (95% CI 3.85 to 5.60), and survival rates at 5, 10, 20 and 30 years were 96%, 90%, 81% and 60%, respectively. The main baseline factors associated with overall mortality in the multivariate analysis were male gender, cryoglobulins and low C4 levels. Baseline activity in the constitutional, pulmonary and biological domains was associated with a higher risk of death. High activity in at least one ESSDAI domain (HR 2.14), a baseline ESSDAI score ≥14 (HR 1.85) and more than one laboratory predictive marker (lymphopenia, anti-La, monoclonal gammopathy, low C3, low C4 and/or cryoglobulins) (HR 2.82) were associated with overall mortality; these HRs increased threefold to 10-fold when the analysis was restricted to mortality associated with systemic disease. Conclusions Patients with primary SS, who present at diagnosis with high systemic activity (ESSDAI ≥14) and/or predictive immunological markers (especially those with more than one), are at higher risk of death.

Long COVID-19 may be defined as patients who, four weeks after the diagnosis of SARS-Cov-2 infection, continue to have signs and symptoms not explainable by other causes. The estimated frequency is around 10% and signs and symptoms may last for months. The main long-term manifestations observed in other coronaviruses (Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS), Middle East respiratory syndrome (MERS)) are very similar to and have clear clinical parallels with SARS-CoV-2: mainly respiratory, musculoskeletal, and neuropsychiatric. The growing number of patients worldwide will have an impact on health systems. Therefore, the main objective of these clinical practice guidelines is to identify patients with signs and symptoms of long COVID-19 in primary care through a protocolized diagnostic process that studies possible etiologies and establishes an accurate differential diagnosis. The guidelines have been developed pragmatically by compiling the few studies published so far on long COVID-19, editorials and expert opinions, press releases, and the authors’ clinical experience. Patients with long COVID-19 should be managed using structured primary care visits based on the time from diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 infection. Based on the current limited evidence, disease management of long COVID-19 signs and symptoms will require a holistic, longitudinal follow up in primary care, multidisciplinary rehabilitation services, and the empowerment of affected patient groups.

To review the reported evidence on the therapeutic management of IgG4-related disease (IgG4-RD) in clinical practice.A systematic search of the literature was conducted. The primary outcome measured was the rate of efficacy of first-line therapeutic approaches. Secondary outcomes measured included the rate of disease relapse, the outcome of untreated patients, the rate of patients without drug therapy at the end of follow-up, the rate of side effects, and mortality. The MOOSE, AHRQ, STROBE, and GRACE recommendations/statements were followed.The results of the systematic search strategy yielded 62 studies that included a total of 3034 patients. Complete information about first-line therapeutic regimens was detailed in 1952 patients, including glucocorticoid-based regimens in 1437 (74%), drug-free regimens in 213 (11%), and other therapies in 38 (2%). No therapy (wait and see management) was reported in 264 (13%) patients. The efficacy of monotherapy with glucocorticoids was specified in 1220 patients, of whom 97% had a therapeutic response. Relapses, however, were reported in 464/1395 (33%) patients despite typically short follow-up periods. Therapeutic efficacy was reported in 219/231 (95%) of relapses treated with glucocorticoids, 56/69 (81%) of those treated with azathioprine, 16/22 (72%) of those treated with other immunosuppressive agents, and in the 9 cases treated with rituximab (100%). In 14 studies, the authors detailed the outcome of 159/246 patients with wait-and-see management; spontaneous improvement or resolution was reported in 68 (43%) cases. Wide heterogeneity was observed with respect to the first-line therapeutic approaches used for the different organ-specific disease subsets, including significant differences in the mean dose of glucocorticoids used.Nearly 70% of reported IgG4-RD patients are treated with oral glucocorticoids in monotherapy. However, the therapeutic management is heavily influenced by geographical, epidemiological, and clinical factors, especially with respect to the predominant organ affected. The frequency of glucocorticoid failure to induce sustained remissions both during and after treatment and the assessment of glucocorticoid toxicity in IgG4-RD require further study.