ArticleRheumatology advances in practice2019
Validity of polymyalgia rheumatica diagnoses and classification criteria in primary health care.
Article in Rheumatology advances in practice, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- Article
- Provision of Health Information to Australians With Polymyalgia Rheumatica: Patient Recall and Perceived Opportunities for Improvement.Musculoskeletal care · 2026Article
- Predictors of giant cell arteritis in patients with polymyalgia rheumatica in southern Sweden-a retrospective study.Rheumatology advances in practice · 2025Article
- Can active sun exposure decrease the risk of giant cell arteritis and polymyalgia rheumatica in women?Rheumatology advances in practice · 2023Article
- An update on polymyalgia rheumatica.Journal of internal medicine · 2022Review
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 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesPMR is an inflammatory disease with prominent morning stiffness and muscular tenderness, usually diagnosed in primary health care (PHC). The objectives were to examine the validity of PMR diagnoses in PHC and to validate the use of classification criteria for PMR.
methodsMedical records for patients with a registered PMR diagnosis at two PHC facilities were reviewed. Patients were classified according to several sets of criteria. An independent review, with assessment of the PMR diagnosis, was performed by an experienced rheumatologist.
resultsOf 188 patients, the PMR diagnosis was in agreement with the independent review in 60% overall, in 84% of those fulfilling a modified version of the ACR/EULAR classification criteria and in 52% of those who did not. The corresponding proportions for the Bird criteria were 66 and 31%, and for the Healey criteria 74 and 42%. In 74% of the medical records, documentation on morning stiffness was missing. Rheumatoid factor was tested in 22% and anti-CCP antibodies in 15%.
conclusionIn this study of patients with PMR diagnosed in PHC, the diagnosis was supported by the independent review in 60% of the patients. Documentation on morning stiffness and testing for autoantibodies were limited. A modified version of the ACR/EULAR criteria can be used to identify patients with a valid PMR diagnosis in retrospective surveys but does not capture all PMR patients. The modified ACR/EULAR criteria may be more stringent than some of the older criteria sets.
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.