ArticleCureus2022
Can a Giant Cell Arteritis (GCA) Risk Stratification Score Be Helpful in Clinical Practice?
Article in Cureus, 2022. 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, 2 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
5 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionGiant cell arteritis (GCA) is the most common type of large vessel vasculitis. The diagnosis of GCA is often challenging and there is a difficult balance of over- and underinvestigation. There have been several proposed scoring systems to help clinicians risk stratify patients who may present with suspected GCA.
methodsA retrospective cohort study was performed using electronic medical records of patients referred for a temporal artery biopsy (TAB) and temporal artery ultrasound scan (USS) for suspected GCA. All TABs performed at the Royal Wolverhampton NHS Trust between June 2014 and June 2018 and all USS procedures performed between January 2015 and January 2019 were analysed. Patients who undergo a USS for suspected GCA at our centre routinely have scanned bilateral temporal and axillary arteries. Patients were excluded if they already had a previous diagnosis of GCA (and the clinical question was suspected flare), or if there was insufficient information available.
resultsThe total number of patients who underwent a confirmatory diagnostic test (either TAB or USS) for suspected GCA was 187. Thirteen of these patients met the exclusion criteria, the remaining 174 patients were included for analysis. A total of 126 of 174 patients underwent a TAB and 63 of 174 had a USS performed; 15 of 174 who had both these were included in the USS cohort because for all these patients, the ultrasound was the first diagnostic test performed. Our results appear to closely mirror the original multi-centre results with regard to the prediction of biopsy-positive GCA, with the centiles closely following those in the inception cohort. Also, 0% of the 'low' risk probability biopsy cohort were misclassified; none had a positive biopsy. However, 8% of the low-risk-probability ultrasound cohort were misclassified, as two had a positive ultrasound.
conclusionOur study highlights that a probability score for GCA derived from a large multi-centre cohort of patients who were biopsy positive predicts ultrasound positivity with similar accuracy. Our work reveals that scoring systems are not infallible but can be helpful in guiding clinical decision making.
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.