• Nenhum resultado encontrado

Rev. Bras. Reumatol. vol.51 número3

N/A
N/A
Protected

Academic year: 2018

Share "Rev. Bras. Reumatol. vol.51 número3"

Copied!
1
0
0

Texto

(1)

ERRATUM

On 1st edition, volume 51, of the Brazilian Journal of Rheumatology, where it reads:

BRAZILIAN JOURNALS OF RHEUMATOLOGY| VOLUME 50 . NUMBER 5 . SEP/OCT 2010 Now reads:

BRAZILIAN JOURNALS OF RHEUMATOLOGY| VOLUME 51 . NUMBER 1 . JAN/FEB 2011 Elsevier Brazil has print resource with correct information for readers who demands it.

We kindly ask for the interested ones to contact us on [email protected]

ERRATA

Na 1ª edição do volume 51 da Revista Brasileira de Reumatologia, onde se lê:

REVISTA BRASILEIRA DE REUMATOLOGIA | VOLUME 50 . NÚMERO 5 . SET/OUT 2010 Leia-se:

Referências

Documentos relacionados

A Sociedade Brasileira de Reumatologia, através de sua Comissão de Artrite Reumatoide, sintetiza recomendações para o manejo da artrite reumatoide no Brasil, com enfoque

It is only through the early and accurate diagnosis of rheumatoid arthritis that its adequate treatment, which can change the natural history of the disease, can be established..

Objective: Develop guidelines for management of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) in Brazil, focusing on diagnosis and early assessment of the disease. Method: Literature review and

Disease activity level for starting biological therapy Previous use of DMARDs Choice of biological drug Switch of biological drugs Index used for assessing response to

This is an incidence study carried out by reviewing the medical records of patients diagnosed with SLE in the municipality of Cascavel, state of Paraná, from August 2007 to

However, the high frequency of physical examination registration in patients with cutaneous and abdominal complaints suggests the health unit was not an important factor to

THHP assessment showed that the animals that underwent swimming training had a signifi cant increase in nociception on the sixth and tenth PO days, which was not observed in CG.

The arguments were as follows: lack of defi nition clarity, with different criteria in existing de- fi nitions; different and multiple phenotypes included in MetS, with