Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32804186›Full record

SynthesisJAMA internal medicine2020

Diagnostic Accuracy of Symptoms, Physical Signs, and Laboratory Tests for Giant Cell Arteritis: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

Kornelis S M van der Geest, Maria Sandovici, Elisabeth Brouwer, Sarah L Mackie

Abstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in JAMA internal medicine, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 69 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
69citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

69 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Observational

9 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Kornelis S M van der GeestDepartment of Rheumatology and Clinical Immunology, University of Groningen, University Medical Center Groningen, Groningen, the Netherlands.
Maria SandoviciDepartment of Rheumatology and Clinical Immunology, University of Groningen, University Medical Center Groningen, Groningen, the Netherlands.
Elisabeth BrouwerDepartment of Rheumatology and Clinical Immunology, University of Groningen, University Medical Center Groningen, Groningen, the Netherlands.
Sarah L MackieLeeds Institute of Rheumatic and Musculoskeletal Medicine, NIHR (National Institute for Health Research) Leeds Biomedical Research Centre, Leeds Teaching Hospitals NHS (National Health Service) Trust, University of Leeds, Leeds, United Kingdom.

Funding

Department of Health NIHR-CS-012-016Medical Research Council MR/N011775/1
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Importance: Current clinical guidelines recommend selecting diagnostic tests for giant cell arteritis (GCA) based on pretest probability that the disease is present, but how pretest probability should be estimated remains unclear. Objective: To evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of symptoms, physical signs, and laboratory tests for suspected GCA. Data Sources: PubMed, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews were searched from November 1940 through April 5, 2020. Study Selection: Trials and observational studies describing patients with suspected GCA, using an appropriate reference standard for GCA (temporal artery biopsy, imaging test, or clinical diagnosis), and with available data for at least 1 symptom, physical sign, or laboratory test. Data Extraction and Synthesis: Screening, full text review, quality assessment, and data extraction by 2 investigators. Diagnostic test meta-analysis used a bivariate model. Main Outcome(s) and Measures: Diagnostic accuracy parameters, including positive and negative likelihood ratios (LRs). Results: In 68 unique studies (14 037 unique patients with suspected GCA; of 7798 patients with sex reported, 5193 were women [66.6%]), findings associated with a diagnosis of GCA included limb claudication (positive LR, 6.01; 95% CI, 1.38-26.16), jaw claudication (positive LR, 4.90; 95% CI, 3.74-6.41), temporal artery thickening (positive LR, 4.70; 95% CI, 2.65-8.33), temporal artery loss of pulse (positive LR, 3.25; 95% CI, 2.49-4.23), platelet count of greater than 400 × 103/μL (positive LR, 3.75; 95% CI, 2.12-6.64), temporal tenderness (positive LR, 3.14; 95% CI, 1.14-8.65), and erythrocyte sedimentation rate greater than 100 mm/h (positive LR, 3.11; 95% CI, 1.43-6.78). Findings that were associated with absence of GCA included the absence of erythrocyte sedimentation rate of greater than 40 mm/h (negative LR, 0.18; 95% CI, 0.08-0.44), absence of C-reactive protein level of 2.5 mg/dL or more (negative LR, 0.38; 95% CI, 0.25-0.59), and absence of age over 70 years (negative LR, 0.48; 95% CI, 0.27-0.86). Conclusions and Relevance: This study identifies the clinical and laboratory features that are most informative for a diagnosis of GCA, although no single feature was strong enough to confirm or refute the diagnosis if taken alone. Combinations of these symptoms might help direct further investigation, such as vascular imaging, temporal artery biopsy, or seeking evaluation for alternative diagnoses.

Indexed as

BiopsyBlood SedimentationClinical Laboratory TechniquesGiant Cell ArteritisHumansPhysical ExaminationPositron-Emission TomographyTemporal ArteriesUltrasonography

Identifiers

PMID32804186
PMCPMC7432275

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.