Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36213649›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in medicine2022

Diagnostic accuracy and validation of

Lien Moreel, Lennert Boeckxstaens, Albrecht Betrains, Maarten Van Hemelen, Steven Vanderschueren, Koen Van Laere, Daniel Blockmans

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in medicine, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
3.3field-weighted citation impact, top 6% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

7 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 23 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. EANM/SNMMI guideline/procedure standard for [European journal of nuclear medicine and molecular imaging · 2025
    Guideline
  2. Trial
  3. Whole-body and site specific [EJNMMI research · 2025
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Characterising polymyalgia rheumatica on whole-bodyRheumatology advances in practice · 2024
    Review
  7. Role and potential ofFrontiers in medicine · 2024
    Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors at 1 institution in 2 countries.

Lien MoreelDepartment of General Internal Medicine, University Hospitals Leuven, Leuven, Belgium.
Lennert BoeckxstaensDepartment of Nuclear Medicine, University Hospitals Leuven, Leuven, Belgium.
Albrecht BetrainsDepartment of General Internal Medicine, University Hospitals Leuven, Leuven, Belgium.
Maarten Van HemelenDepartment of General Internal Medicine, University Hospitals Leuven, Leuven, Belgium.
Steven VanderschuerenDepartment of General Internal Medicine, University Hospitals Leuven, Leuven, Belgium.
Koen Van LaereDepartment of Nuclear Medicine, University Hospitals Leuven, Leuven, Belgium.
Daniel BlockmansDepartment of General Internal Medicine, University Hospitals Leuven, Leuven, Belgium.
KU Leuven · BE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Several studies have shown that Methods: Patients with a possible clinical diagnosis of PMR and a PET scan prior to the initiation of glucocorticoids between 2003 and 2020 were included retrospectively. The gold standard for the diagnosis of PMR was the judgment of two experienced clinicians after a follow-up of at least 6 months. FDG uptake was scored visually in 12 articular regions (scores 0-2) and a total skeletal score was calculated by summing the individual scores (maximum of 24 for the Leuven score and 14 for the Leuven/Groningen score). Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis and the Youden index were used to determine the diagnostic accuracy and optimal cut-off points. Results: A total of 162 patients with PMR and 83 control patients were included. Both PET scores showed high diagnostic accuracy in the ROC analysis (area under the curve 0.986 and 0.980, respectively). The Leuven Score provided a sensitivity of 91.4%, specificity of 97.6% and accuracy of 93.5% at its predefined cut-off point of 16. With the newly determined cut-off point of 12 the sensitivity was 98.8%, the specificity 95.2% and the accuracy 97.6%. The Leuven/Groningen score had a sensitivity, specificity and accuracy of 93.2%, 95.2%, and 93.9%, respectively, with the pre-specified cut-off point of 8, and 96.9%, 92.8%, and 95.5% with the optimal cut-off point of 7. Conclusion: The original Leuven score and the simplified Leuven/Groningen score both had excellent diagnostic accuracy. The latter may be easier to apply in clinical practice.

Indexed as

diagnostic accuracyLeuven/Groningen scoreleuven scorePETpolymyalgia rheumatica (PMR)validation

Identifiers

PMID36213649
PMCPMC9533121
OpenAlexW4296736945

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.