ArticleFrontiers in medicine2022
Diagnostic accuracy and validation of
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.
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
7 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 23 citations in OpenAlex.
- EANM/SNMMI guideline/procedure standard for [European journal of nuclear medicine and molecular imaging · 2025Guideline
- The effect of prednisolone and a short-term prednisolone discontinuation for the diagnostic accuracy of FDG-PET/CT in polymyalgia rheumatica-a prospective study of 101 patients.European journal of nuclear medicine and molecular imaging · 2024Trial
- Whole-body and site specific [EJNMMI research · 2025Article
- 18F-FDG-PET/CT for polymyalgia rheumatica: agreement and diagnostic accuracy of routine PET scan report vs. standardized PMR PET scores.Frontiers in nuclear medicine · 2025Article
- Positron Emission Tomography/Computed Tomography in Polymyalgia Rheumatica: When and for What-A Critical Review.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Review
- Characterising polymyalgia rheumatica on whole-bodyRheumatology advances in practice · 2024Review
- Role and potential ofFrontiers in medicine · 2024Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 1 institution in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
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.