ArticleClinical rheumatology2020
Validating a diagnostic GCA ultrasonography service against temporal artery biopsy and long-term clinical outcomes.
Article in Clinical rheumatology, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 2 of them syntheses 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 23 citations in OpenAlex.
- Pooled it
- Diagnostic Accuracy of Symptoms, Physical Signs, and Laboratory Tests for Giant Cell Arteritis: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.JAMA internal medicine · 2020Pooled it
- Frequency of visual involvement in a 10-year interdisciplinary cohort of patients with giant cell arteritis.Clinical medicine (London, England) · 2023Article
- Improving the quality of care for people with giant cell arteritis.Clinical medicine (London, England) · 2021Article
- Role of the halo sign in the assessment of giant cell arteritis: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Rheumatology advances in practice · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Currently, there is no mechanism for service validation of diagnostic ultrasonography (US) for giant cell arteritis (GCA). Temporal artery biopsy (TAB) and classification criteria are poor benchmarks. We validated our service against physician-verified diagnosis at 100 weeks (100wD). Twenty-five patients underwent US within 7 days, and TAB within 28 days, of commencing prednisolone. US, TAB and baseline diagnosis (bD) were all compared with 100wD using Cohen's kappa. Fourteen US and 8 TABs were positive. Twenty at baseline and 14 at 100 weeks had diagnosis of GCA. The kappa (95% CI) were 0.4 (0.1, 0.7) for US vs. TAB; 0.5 (0.2, 0.8) for US vs. bD and 0.2 (0.0, 0.4) for TAB vs. bD. Versus 100wD, the kappa (95% CI) were 0.8 (0.6, 1.0) for US; 0.4 (0.1, 0.7) for TAB and 0.6 (0.3, 0.9) for bD. Seven cases were US+/TAB-. Four had alternate confirmation: 18FDG-PET (n = 1), CT Aorta (n = 1) and US at relapse (n = 2). At 100 weeks, 4 cases (all US-/TAB-) with bD of GCA had alternative diagnoses including cancer (n = 2). This is the first study validating US service provision for GCA. Twenty-five US with a robust kappa on comparison with long-term diagnosis validates our service. A diagnosis of GCA should be made with extreme caution for US-/TAB- cases.Key Points• This is the first study offering a way to validate a new diagnostic US service by validation against TAB and long-term physician-verified diagnosis.• US has substantial to near-perfect agreement with long-term physician-verified diagnosis and is more reliable than TAB in our hands.• Alternative diagnoses should be sought in patients with dual negativity for US and TAB.
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.