ArticleACR open rheumatology2021
Clinical Experience With a Multidisciplinary Model of Vascular Ultrasound for the Evaluation for Giant Cell Arteritis.
Article in ACR open rheumatology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Halo sign on temporal artery ultrasound versus temporal artery biopsy for giant cell arteritis.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2024Pooled it
- Diagnosing vasculitis with ultrasound: findings and pitfalls.Therapeutic advances in musculoskeletal disease · 2024Review
- Vascular Ultrasound for Giant Cell Arteritis: Establishing a Protocol Using Vascular Sonographers in a Fast-Track Clinic in the United States.ACR open rheumatology · 2022Article
- Review
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
Abstract
objectiveVascular ultrasound (VUS) is a first-line test for giant cell arteritis (GCA) in Europe but has been of limited use in the United States. We report clinical experience with a multidisciplinary model of VUS for the evaluation of GCA at a large US medical center.
methodsPatients who underwent VUS for evaluation of GCA between 2013 and 2017 were reviewed. Trained vascular technologists followed a standardized protocol to visualize bilateral temporal, carotid, subclavian, and axillary arteries. Vascular medicine physicians interpreted VUS as no arteritis, hyperechoic wall thickening, or acute arteritis. Characteristics of patients with versus without acute arteritis (no arteritis or hyperechoic wall thickening) were compared. Among patients with suspected new-onset GCA, the treating physician's pretest and posttest suspicion for GCA were compared.
resultsOf 530 patients, 10.6% had prior-onset GCA, 31.7% had polymyalgia rheumatica, and 57.6% were taking glucocorticoids. Most patients had no arteritis on VUS (84.3%); 10.6% had acute arteritis, and 5.1% had hyperechoic wall thickening. Typical GCA symptoms, such as jaw claudication and scalp tenderness, were significantly more frequent in patients with acute arteritis. For all 42 patients with suspected new-onset GCA and acute arteritis, posttest suspicion was unchanged or increased. Of 415 patients with suspected new-onset GCA and VUS without acute arteritis, suspicion decreased (76.4%) or was unchanged (20.2%).
conclusionWe describe a multidisciplinary model for incorporating VUS into GCA care. When pretest suspicion was low and VUS did not reveal acute arteritis, posttest suspicion typically decreased, whereas when pretest suspicion was high and VUS revealed acute arteritis, posttest suspicion was reinforced.
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.