Abstract
In response to Dr. Kasperkiewicz's commentary on our meta-analysis conducted by Bocanegra-Oyola et al., we fully agree with refining diagnostic processes for ocular pemphigoid, particularly in differentiating it from pseudopemphigoid. We concur that relying solely on clinical findings may result in misdiagnoses. Confirming the diagnosis via biopsy can be challenging, requiring multiple biopsies in some patients, and should always be supported by a multidisciplinary clinical assessment involving ophthalmologists and dermatologists.
| Translated title of the contribution | Respuesta de los autores a la carta al director en respuesta a: Comentario sobre «Características clínicas del penfigoide de la membrana mucosa ocular: Una revisión sistemática y metaanálisis» |
|---|---|
| Original language | English (US) |
| Pages (from-to) | 2624-2625 |
| Number of pages | 2 |
| Journal | Ocular Immunology and Inflammation |
| Volume | 32 |
| Issue number | 10 |
| DOIs | |
| State | Published - Dec 2024 |
UN SDGs
This output contributes to the following UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)
-
SDG 3 Good Health and Well-being
All Science Journal Classification (ASJC) codes
- Immunology and Allergy
- Ophthalmology
Fingerprint
Dive into the research topics of 'Authors Reply to Letter to the Editor–In Response to: Comment on Bocanegra-Oyola et al.’s “Clinical Characteristics of Ocular Mucous Membrane Pemphigoid: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis”'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.Cite this
- APA
- Author
- BIBTEX
- Harvard
- Standard
- RIS
- Vancouver