ArticleClinical epidemiology2020
Positive Predictive Value of the Giant Cell Arteritis Diagnosis in the Danish National Patient Registry: A Validation Study.
Article in Clinical epidemiology, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 14 citations in OpenAlex.
- Impact of diabetes mellitus on mortality in patients with giant cell arteritis.EULAR rheumatology open · 2026Article
- Autoimmune Disease Risk With GLP-1RA, DPP-4i, and SGLT2i Treatment in Patients With Diabetes.ACR open rheumatology · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo investigate the positive predictive value (PPV) of the giant cell arteritis (GCA) diagnosis in the Danish National Patient Registry (DNPR). PATIENTS AND
methodsA total of 293 patients aged ≥50 years with a first-time diagnosis of GCA in the DNPR between January 2012 and December 2017 were included. Patients were sampled from two secondary and one tertiary care hospitals in the Central Region Denmark. Two independent investigators (PH & PT) reviewed all medical files, including medical records, treatment, biochemistry, histopathology and imaging, and either confirmed or dismissed the diagnosis of GCA. In case of disagreement, a consensus agreement was reached. Sub-analyses including number of redeemed prescriptions performed temporal artery biopsies (TABs), and number of GCA-related hospital contacts were performed.
resultsWe confirmed the diagnosis of GCA in 183/293 patients resulting in a PPV of 62% (95% CI: 57-68). In patients with ≥3 redeemed prescriptions of glucocorticoids (GCs), we confirmed the diagnosis in 166/214 resulting in a PPV of 78% (95% CI: 71-83). In patients with ≥3 redeemed prescriptions of GCs and ≥3 GCA-related hospital contacts, we confirmed the diagnosis in 88/95 resulting in a PPV of 93% (95% CI: 85-96); however, this only included 88/183 confirmed GCA patients.
conclusionThis is the first study to validate the diagnostic code of GCA in the DNPR. The overall PPV of GCA in the DNPR was 62%. Requiring redeemed prescriptions of GCs and/or GCA-related hospital contacts increase the PPV, but also excludes a significant number of GCA patients.
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.