ArticleEye (London, England)2023
Comparison of temporal artery ultrasound versus biopsy in the diagnosis of giant cell arteritis.
Article in Eye (London, England), 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 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
11 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 25 citations in OpenAlex.
- Pooled it
- Ultrasound, PET/CT or temporal artery biopsy for giant cell arteritis? A prospective diagnostic accuracy study (the GAME-study).Acta ophthalmologica · 2026Observational
- Review
- Operative Procedures for Ultrasound Assessment of Extracranial Artery Disease: A Narrative Review by the Italian Society for Vascular Investigation (SIDV).Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Review
- The Set up and the Triggers: An Update on the Risk Factors for Giant Cell Arteritis.Current neurology and neuroscience reports · 2024Review
- Multimodality Imaging in Cranial Giant Cell Arteritis: First Experience with High-Resolution T1-Weighted 3D Black Blood without Contrast Enhancement Magnetic Resonance Imaging.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
- [Imaging of large vessel vasculitis].Zeitschrift fur Rheumatologie · 2023Review
- Is Erythrocyte Sedimentation Rate Necessary for the Initial Diagnosis of Giant Cell Arteritis?Life (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
- An update on the clinical approach to giant cell arteritis.Clinical medicine (London, England) · 2022Article
- Giant Cell Arteritis: Updates and Controversies.Frontiers in ophthalmology · 2022Review
- Optical Coherence Tomography of Peripapillary Vessels in Giant Cell Arteritis and Ischaemic Ocular Disease.Neuro-ophthalmology (Aeolus Press) · 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
12 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BACKGROUND/
objectivesGiant cell arteritis (GCA) is a medical and ophthalmological emergency due to risk of stroke and sudden irreversible loss of vision. Fast and accurate diagnosis is important to prevent complications and long-term high dose glucocorticoids toxicity. Temporal artery biopsy is gold standard for diagnosing GCA. However, temporal artery ultrasound is a fast and non-invasive procedure which may provide a supplement or an alternative to biopsy. This study assesses the diagnostic performance of ultrasound and biopsy in the diagnosis of GCA. SUBJECTS/
methodsExamination results of patients suspected of having GCA in the period from August 2018 to June 2019 were reviewed. Patients underwent clinical examination and blood tests. Within a few days of starting glucocorticoid treatment, temporal ultrasound and unilateral biopsy were performed. Experienced physicians established the final clinical diagnosis at 6-months follow-up.
resultsSeventy-eight patients underwent both ultrasound and biopsy. Thirty-five (45%) received the final clinical diagnosis of GCA. Compared with the final clinical diagnosis, biopsy had a sensitivity of 69% (51-83%) and a specificity of 100% (92-100%), and ultrasound a sensitivity of 63% (45-79%) and a specificity of 79% (64-94%). Area under the receiver operating characteristics curves were 0.84 and 0.71 for biopsy and ultrasound respectively (p = 0.048). False negative rate of ultrasound was 4 out of 78 (5%).
conclusionSensitivity of ultrasound is almost on par with that of biopsy although the overall diagnostic accuracy of ultrasound was slightly lower. We find that ultrasound is a reliable tool for first line diagnosis of 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.