ReviewFrontiers in medicine2022
Evolution of ultrasound in giant cell arteritis.
Review 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 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.
- Diagnostic Challenges and Modern Therapeutic Strategies in Giant Cell Arteritis.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Long-Term Follow-Up in Patients with Large-Vessel Vasculitis Applying Extracranial and Transcranial Duplex Sonography.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Cranial and extracranial manifestations of giant cell arteritis: a single-center observational study.Rheumatology international · 2024Observational
- Role and potential ofFrontiers in medicine · 2024Review
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Ultrasound (US) is being increasingly used to diagnose Giant Cell Arteritis (GCA). The traditional diagnostic Gold Standard has been temporal artery biopsy (TAB), but this is expensive, invasive, has a false-negative rate as high as 60% and has little impact on clinical decision-making. A non-compressible halo with a thickened intima-media complex (IMC) is the sonographic hallmark of GCA. The superficial temporal arteries (STA) and axillary arteries (AA) are the most consistently inflamed arteries sonographically and imaging protocols for evaluating suspected GCA should include at least these two arterial territories. Studies evaluating temporal artery ultrasound (TAUS) have varied considerably in size and methodology with results showing wide discrepancies in sensitivity (9-100%), specificity (66-100%), positive predictive value (36-100%) and negative predictive value (33-100%). Bilateral halos increase sensitivity as does the incorporation of pre-test probability, while prior corticosteroid use decreases sensitivity. Quantifying sonographic vasculitis using Halo Counts and Halo Scores can predict disease extent/severity, risk of specific complications and likelihood of treatment response. Regression of the Halo sign has been observed from as little as 2 days to as late as 7 months after initiation of immunosuppressive treatment and occurs at different rates in STAs than AAs. US is more sensitive than TAB and has comparable sensitivity to MRI and PET/CT. It is time-efficient, cost-effective and allows for the implementation of fast-track GCA clinics which substantially mitigate the risk of irreversible blindness. Algorithms incorporating combinations of imaging modalities can achieve a 100% sensitivity and specificity for a diagnosis of GCA. US should be a standard first line investigation in routine clinical care of patients with suspected GCA with TAB reserved only for those having had a normal US in the context of a high pre-test probability.
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.