ArticleRheumatology advances in practice2022
Validation of the Southend giant cell arteritis probability score in a Scottish single-centre fast-track pathway.
Article in Rheumatology advances in practice, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 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
9 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 17 citations in OpenAlex.
- Treat-to-target recommendations in giant cell arteritis and polymyalgia rheumatica.Annals of the rheumatic diseases · 2024Pooled it
- Prospective Diagnostic Accuracy of Focused Frontal-Branch Ultrasonography in Giant Cell Arteritis.ACR open rheumatology · 2026Article
- Patient characteristics, disease manifestations and diagnostic findings of consecutive patients suspected of Giant Cell Arteritis (GCA) - retrospective experience from a fast-track clinic in Israel.Clinical rheumatology · 2026Article
- Article
- Fast-track pathway for giant cell arteritis: Improved visual outcomes and reduced healthcare costs.PloS one · 2025Article
- Distinguishing laboratory characteristics in giant cell arteritis: a real-world retrospective cohort study.International ophthalmology · 2023Article
- Giant Cell Arteritis: Updates and Controversies.Frontiers in ophthalmology · 2022Review
- Comment on: Validation of the Southend giant cell arteritis probability score in a Scottish single-centre fast-track pathway.Rheumatology advances in practice · 2022Article
- Comment on: Validation of the Southend giant cell arteritis probability score in a Scottish single-centre fast-track pathway. Reply.Rheumatology advances in practice · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveThe aim was to provide external validation of the Southend GCA probability score (GCAPS) in patients attending a GCA fast-track pathway (GCA FTP) in NHS Lanarkshire.
methodsConsecutive GCA FTP patients between November 2018 and December 2020 underwent GCAPS assessment as part of routine care. GCA diagnoses were supported by US of the cranial and axillary arteries (USS), with or without temporal artery biopsy (TAB), and confirmed at 6 months. Percentages of patients with GCA according to GCAPS risk group, performance of total GCAPS in distinguishing GCA/non-GCA final diagnoses, and test characteristics using different GCAPS binary cut-offs were assessed. Associations between individual GCAPS components and GCA and the value of USS and TAB in the diagnostic process were also explored.
resultsForty-four of 129 patients were diagnosed with GCA, including 0 of 41 GCAPS low-risk patients (GCAPS <9), 3 of 40 medium-risk patients (GCAPS 9-12) and 41 of 48 high-risk patients (GCAPS >12). Overall performance of GCAPS in distinguishing GCA/non-GCA was excellent [area under the receiver operating characteristic curve, 0.976 (95% CI 0.954, 0.999)]. GCAPS cut-off ≥10 had 100.0% sensitivity and 67.1% specificity for GCA. GCAPS cut-off ≥13 had the highest accuracy (91.5%), with 93.2% sensitivity and 90.6% specificity. Several individual GCAPS components were associated with GCA. Sensitivity of USS increased by ascending GCAPS risk group (nil, 33.3% and 90.2%, respectively). TAB was diagnostically useful in cases where USS was inconclusive.
conclusionThis is the first published study to describe application of GCAPS outside the specialist centre where it was developed. Performance of GCAPS as a risk stratification tool was excellent. GCAPS might have additional value for screening GCA FTP referrals and guiding empirical glucocorticoid treatment.
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.