ArticleFrontiers in immunology2022
Derivation and Validation of a New Disease Activity Assessment Tool With Higher Accuracy for Takayasu Arteritis.
Article in Frontiers in immunology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Management of Takayasu Arteritis - A 2026 Update.Current rheumatology reports · 2026Review
- Carotid steal syndrome with recurrent syncope: A novel manifestation of Takayasu arteritis.Global cardiology science & practice · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: To develop a new disease activity assessment tool with high accuracy for Takayasu arteritis. Methods: Individual items from National Institute of Health (NIH) criteria and the Indian Takayasu Clinical Activity Score (ITAS2010) were tested as candidate variables to develop a new disease activity assessment tool in a derivation cohort (N = 100). Physician global assessment on disease activity was used as the gold standard. Multivariable logistic regression models were constructed and the model with the highest accuracy was identified. A formula assessing disease activity was generated using simplified β coefficients (rounded to decimal place). Diagnostic performance was evaluated through estimating the area under the curve (AUC). The new assessment tool was subsequently validated in a validation cohort (N = 46). Results: The multivariable model yielding the highest accuracy consisted of a high erythrocyte sedimentation rate (ESR), NIH criteria 1 and 4, and carotidynia. Using simplified β coefficients, the following disease activity assessment tool was developed: high ESR (3 points), NIH criterion 1 (2 points), NIH criterion 4 (4 points), and carotidynia (3 points) (total score ≥5, active; total score <5, inactive). The new disease activity assessment tool had a higher AUC (89.37) for discriminating active and inactive diseases than NIH criteria (AUC 77.96), ITAS2010 (AUC 66.12), ITAS-ESR (AUC 75.58), and ITAS-C-reactive protein (AUC 71.34). The AUC (85.23) of the new assessment tool was similar in the validation cohort. Conclusion: A new disease activity assessment tool that consists of high ESR, NIH criteria 1 and 4, and carotidynia had higher accuracy in discriminating active and inactive disease than currently used clinical assessment tools.
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.