ArticleArthritis research & therapy2020
Magnetic resonance imaging compared to ultrasonography in giant cell arteritis: a cross-sectional study.
Article in Arthritis research & therapy, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 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
15 citing papers in PubMed, 29 citations in OpenAlex.
- Diagnostic accuracy of magnetic resonance imaging and ultrasonography for rotator cuff tears : Comparison with magnetic resonance arthrography as the gold standard.Radiologie (Heidelberg, Germany) · 2026Article
- An in-depth comparison of vascular inflammation on ultrasound, FDG-PET/CT and MRI in patients with suspected giant cell arteritis.European journal of nuclear medicine and molecular imaging · 2025Article
- Imaging Findings in Giant Cell Arteritis: Don't Turn a Blind Eye to the Obvious!AJNR. American journal of neuroradiology · 2025Review
- Isolated inflammatory involvement of the occipital artery in giant cell arteritis and polymyalgia rheumatica: findings from a retrospective analysis and the critical role of MRI in diagnosis.Rheumatology international · 2025Article
- Updates in the Management of Giant Cell Arteritis.Current neurology and neuroscience reports · 2024Review
- Magnetic Resonance Imaging Findings Corresponding to Vasculitis as Defined via [Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
- Atypical giant cell arteritis presentations diagnosed with FDG-18 whole body PET imaging.BMJ case reports · 2023Article
- Updates on the diagnosis and monitoring of giant cell arteritis.Frontiers in medicine · 2023Review
- Predictive Factors of Giant Cell Arteritis in Polymyalgia Rheumatica Patients.Journal of clinical medicine · 2022Review
- Evolution of ultrasound in giant cell arteritis.Frontiers in medicine · 2022Review
- Current developments in the diagnosis and treatment of giant cell arteritis.Frontiers in medicine · 2022Review
- The Emerging Era of Interventional Imaging in Rheumatology: An Overview During the Coronavirus Disease-2019 (COVID-19) Pandemic.Open access rheumatology : research and reviews · 2022Review
- Imaging Tests in the Early Diagnosis of Giant Cell Arteritis.Journal of clinical medicine · 2021Review
- Retinal Detachment and Temporal Artery Dissection: An Elusive Case of Giant Cell Arteritis.Cureus · 2021Article
- 2020 Clinical Highlights in Rheumatology.Mediterranean journal of rheumatology · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 6 institutions in 5 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThere has been a shift in recent years to using ultrasound (US) and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) as first-line investigations for suspected cranial large vessel vasculitis (LVV) and is a new recommendation by the EULAR 2018 guidelines for imaging in LVV. This cross-sectional study compares the performance of US and MRI and contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance angiography (MRA) for detecting vasculitis in patients with giant cell arteritis (GCA).
methodsPatients with new-onset or already diagnosed GCA were recruited. The common temporal arteries and supra-aortic large vessels were evaluated by US and MRI/MRA. Blinded experts read the images and applied a dichotomous score (vasculitis: yes/no) in each vessel.
resultsThirty-seven patients with giant cell arteritis (GCA) were recruited. Two patients were excluded. Of the remaining patients, nine had new-onset disease and 26 had established disease. Mean age was 71 years, and median C-reactive protein (CRP) was 7.5 mg/L. The median time between US and MRI was 1 day. Overall, US revealed vasculitic changes more frequently than MRI (p < 0.001). US detected vascular changes in 37% of vessels compared to 21% with MRI. Among patients with chronic disease, US detected vascular changes in 23% of vessels compared to 7% with MRI in (p < 0.001). The same was true for patients with new-onset disease. US detected vasculitic changes in 22% of vessels and MRI detected disease in 6% (p = 0.0004). Compared to contrast-enhanced MRA, US was more sensitive in detecting vasculitic changes in the large arteries, including the axillary, carotid, and subclavian arteries.
conclusionUS more frequently detects vasculitic changes in the large arteries compared to contrast-enhanced MRA. When evaluating the cranial vessels, US performs similarly to MRI. This data supports the recommendation that US be considered as a first-line evaluation in patients suspected to have GCA.
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.