ArticleDiagnostics (Basel, Switzerland)2023
Performance of Deauville Criteria in
Article in Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland), 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 0 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
In this retrospective study, PET/CT data from 59 patients with suspected giant cell arteritis (GCA) were reviewed using the Deauville criteria to determine an optimal cut-off between PET positivity and negativity. Seventeen standardised vascular regions were analysed per patient by three investigators blinded to clinical information. Statistical analysis included ROC curves with areas under the curve (AUC), Cohen's and Fleiss' kappa (κ) to calculate sensitivity, specificity, accuracy, and agreement. According to final clinician's diagnosis and the revised 2017 ACR criteria GCA was confirmed in 29 of 59 (49.2 %) patients. With a diagnostic cut-off ≥ 4 (highest tracer uptake of a vessel wall exceeds liver uptake) for PET positivity, all investigators achieved high accuracy (range, 89.8-93.2%) and AUC (range, 0.94-0.97). Sensitivity and specificity ranged from 89.7-96.6% and 83.3-96.7%, respectively. Agreement between the three investigators suggested 'almost perfect agreement' (Fleiss' κ = 0.84) A Deauville score of ≥4 as threshold for PET positivity yielded excellent results with high accuracy and almost perfect inter-rater agreement, suggesting a standardized, reproducible, and reliable score in diagnosing GCA. However, the small sample size and reference standard could lead to biases. Therefore, verification in a multicentre study with a larger patient cohort and prospective setting is needed.
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.