ArticlePlastic and reconstructive surgery. Global open2022
Necessity of Temporal Artery Biopsy for Giant Cell Arteritis: A Systematic Review.
Article in Plastic and reconstructive surgery. Global open, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- 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
- Diagnostic Dilemmas in Giant Cell Arteritis: Overcoming Anchoring Bias.Case reports in rheumatology · 2025Article
- Optical frequency domain imaging (OFDI) represents a novel technique for the diagnosis of giant cell arteritis.Eye (London, England) · 2024Article
- Questioning the Utility of Temporal Artery Biopsy in Giant Cell Arteritis: A Negative Biopsy May Facilitate Decision-making.Plastic and reconstructive surgery. Global open · 2023Article
- Temporal Artery Biopsy Debate: Positive TAB Result Prolongs Steroid Use in Giant Cell Arteritis.Plastic and reconstructive surgery. Global open · 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 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Temporal artery biopsy (TAB) is currently the gold standard procedure to diagnose giant cell arteritis. Despite low sensitivity, TAB is routinely performed even if a clinical diagnosis has already been made. The objective of this study was to determine the usefulness of TAB for giant cell arteritis management. Methods: We performed a systematic review to identify studies that compared steroid treatment between TAB+ and TAB- patients. EMBASE, MEDLINE, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were searched from inception until April 4, 2020. Titles, abstracts, and full texts were reviewed by two independent reviewers and conflicts resolved by consensus. Studies reporting TAB result and steroid treatment were included. Information pertaining to steroid treatment was compared between TAB+ and TAB- groups. Steroid duration was compared by grouping patients in a less than 6 month group, a 6-24 month group, and a more than 24 month group. Results: An estimated 5288 abstracts were screened and 13 studies involving 1355 patients were included. Rate of prebiopsy steroid treatment was higher in TAB+ patients compared with TAB- patients [93% versus 63% ( Conclusion: TAB results have minimal impact on treatment, and the utility should be reconsidered when a clinical diagnosis of giant cell arteritis is possible.
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.