ArticleEye (London, England)2017
Ophthalmic presentation of giant cell arteritis in African-Americans.
Article in Eye (London, England), 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
7 citing papers in PubMed, 20 citations in OpenAlex.
- Article
- Giant Cell Arteritis: Updates and Controversies.Frontiers in ophthalmology · 2022Review
- Giant cell arteritis: Its ophthalmic manifestations.Indian journal of ophthalmology · 2021Review
- The Immunopathology of Giant Cell Arteritis Across Disease Spectra.Frontiers in immunology · 2021Review
- Giant cell arteritis in patients of Indian Subcontinental descent in the UK.Eye (London, England) · 2019Article
- Simultaneous bilateral posterior ischemic optic neuropathy secondary to giant cell arteritis: a case presentation and review of the literature.BMC ophthalmology · 2018Review
- Diagnosis and management of giant cell arteritis.Taiwan journal of ophthalmologyReview
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
18 authors at 11 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
PurposeTo determine the differences in the presentation of ophthalmic giant cell arteritis between African-Americans and Caucasians.MethodsThis was a multicenter retrospective case series comparing African-American patients with ophthalmic GCA to a previously published Caucasian cohort. Neuro-ophthalmic centers across the United States were contacted to provide data on African-American patients with biopsy-proven ophthalmic giant cell arteritis. The differences between African-American and Caucasian patients with respect to multiple variables, including age, sex, systemic and ophthalmic signs and symptoms, ocular ischemic lesions, and laboratory results were studied.ResultsThe Caucasian cohort was slightly older (mean=76.1 years) than the African-American cohort (mean=72.6 years, P=0.03), and there was no difference in sex distribution between the two cohorts. Headache, neck pain, and anemia were more frequent, while jaw claudication was less frequent in African-Americans (P<0.01, <0.001, 0.02, and 0.03 respectively). Acute vision loss was the most common presentation of giant cell arteritis in both groups, though it was less common in African-Americans (78 vs 98% of Caucasians, P<0.001). Eye pain was more common in African-Americans (28 vs 8% of Caucasians, P<0.01).ConclusionsThe presenting features of ophthalmic giant cell arteritis in African-Americans and Caucasians are not markedly different, although a few significant differences exist, including higher rates of headache, neck pain, anemia, and eye pain, and lower rates of jaw claudication and acute vision loss in African-Americans. Persons presenting with suspicious signs and symptoms should undergo evaluation for giant cell arteritis regardless of race.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.