ArticleThe Journal of rheumatology2017
Healthcare Use and Direct Cost of Giant Cell Arteritis: A Population-based Study.
Article in The Journal of rheumatology, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Illness Burden and Unmet Patient Needs in Giant Cell Arteritis: Current State and Future Prospects.Open access rheumatology : research and reviews · 2025Review
- Analysis of Emergency Department Visits by Patients With Giant Cell Arteritis: A National Population-Based Study.Cureus · 2023Article
- Profile of tocilizumab and its potential in the treatment of giant cell arteritis.Eye and brain · 2018Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveTo determine the healthcare use and direct medical cost of giant cell arteritis (GCA) in a population-based cohort.
methodsA well-defined, retrospective population-based cohort of Olmsted County, Minnesota, USA, residents diagnosed with GCA from 1982-2009 was compared to a matched referent cohort from the same population. Standardized cost data (inflation-adjusted to 2014 US dollars) for 1987-2014 and outpatient use data for 1995-2014 were obtained. Use and costs were compared between cohorts through signed-rank paired tests, McNemar's tests, and quantile regression models.
resultsSignificant annual differences in outpatient costs were observed for patients with GCA in each of the first 4 years (median differences: $2085, $437, $382, $388, respectively). In adjusted analyses, median incremental cost attributed to GCA over a 5-year period was $4662. Compared with matched referent subjects, patients with GCA had higher use of laboratory visit-days annually for each of the first 3 years following incidence/index date, and increased outpatient physician visits for years 0-1, 1-2, and 3-4. Patients with GCA had significantly more radiology visit-days in years 0-1, 3-4, and 4-5, and more ophthalmologic procedures/surgery in years 0-1, 1-2, 2-3, and 4-5 compared to non-GCA. Emergency medicine visits, musculoskeletal, and cardiovascular procedures/surgery were similar between GCA and non-GCA groups throughout the study period.
conclusionDirect medical outpatient costs were increased in the month preceding and in the first 4 years following GCA diagnosis. Higher use of outpatient physician, laboratory, and radiology visits, and ophthalmologic procedures among these patients accounts for the increased cost of care.
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.