ArticleBMC medical imaging2019
Ultrasound versus temporal artery biopsy in patients with Giant cell arteritis: a prospective cohort study.
Article in BMC medical imaging, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It has been retracted, and should not be counted. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- Halo sign on temporal artery ultrasound versus temporal artery biopsy for giant cell arteritis.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2024Pooled it
- Unraveling the complexity of IgG4-related aortitis and periarteritis: from pathogenesis to clinical practice.Frontiers in immunology · 2025Review
- Clinical and technical determinants of positive temporal artery biopsy: a retrospective cohort study.Rheumatology international · 2021Article
- Retraction Note: Ultrasound versus temporal artery biopsy in patients with Giant cell arteritis: a prospective cohort study.BMC medical imaging · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
- Retraction · 2020-05-21Duplication of/in Image · Manipulation of Images · Unreliable Results and/or Conclusions ·
- Retracted
Authors and funding
3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundDiagnosis of giant cell arteritis by temporal artery biopsy is time-consuming and visual loss lies in the first week after its diagnosis. The purpose of the study was to test the hypothesis that ultrasound can reduce the risk of overdiagnosis and overtreatment in giant cell arteritis.
methodsData regarding physical/ clinical features examinations, temporal artery biopsy examinations, ultrasound findings, and magnetic resonance imaging examinations of 980 suspected patients for giant cell arteritis were included in the study. Decision curve analysis was applied to get a beneficial score for selected diagnostic modalities. Cost analysis was performed for each patient.
resultsFewer numbers of false positive giant cell arteritis results were reported under physical/ clinical features examinations following ultrasound detection than physical/clinical features examinations following temporal artery biopsy examinations (45 vs. 127, p < 0.0001). The working area that detects giant cell arteritis at least one time for physical/ clinical features examinations following ultrasound detection and physical/ clinical features examinations following temporal artery biopsy examinations were 0-91% and 0-86%. No significant difference for true negative results between magnetic resonance imaging and physical and clinical features examinations following ultrasound detection (p = 0.007). Physical and clinical features examinations following ultrasound detection were less expensive method than physical/ clinical features examinations following temporal artery biopsy examinations (14,023 ± 982 ¥/patient vs. 18,551 ± 1231 ¥/patient, p < 0.0001) and MRI.
conclusionPhysical and clinical features examinations following ultrasound are recommended for diagnosis of patients with suspected giant cell arteritis.
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.