Observational studyRMD open2023
Performance of the 2022 ACR/EULAR giant cell arteritis classification criteria for diagnosis in patients with suspected giant cell arteritis in routine clinical care.
Observational study in RMD open, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 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
14 citing papers in PubMed.
- Review
- Imaging-guided stratification in giant cell arteritis: prognostic and therapeutic implications.Therapeutic advances in musculoskeletal disease · 2026Review
- Article
- Utilising multiple discharge coding will improve identification of patients with giant cell arteritis: a retrospective analysis of a hospital discharge dataset.Rheumatology international · 2025Article
- Performance of the modified 2022 ACR/EULAR giant cell arteritis classification criteria without age restriction for discriminating from Takayasu arteritis.Arthritis research & therapy · 2025Article
- The impact of histopathological criteria for definite vasculitis in giant cell arteritis: retrospective analysis of temporal artery biopsies.Rheumatology international · 2024Article
- Clinical Phenotypes of Giant Cell Arteritis: Insights into Complications and Survival Outcomes.European journal of rheumatology · 2024Article
- Incidence and clinical manifestations of giant cell arteritis in Spain: results of the ARTESER register.RMD open · 2024Article
- Article
- Diagnosing vasculitis with ultrasound: findings and pitfalls.Therapeutic advances in musculoskeletal disease · 2024Review
- Article
- Giant cell temporal arteritis: a clinicopathological study with emphasis on unnecessary biopsy.Frontiers in ophthalmology · 2023Article
- Vasculitis distribution and clinical characteristics in giant cell arteritis: a retrospective study using the new 2022 ACR/EULAR classification criteria.Frontiers in medicine · 2023Article
- A Case of Elderly-Onset Ulcerative Colitis with Large-Vessel Giant Cell Arteritis Treated Successfully with Tofocitinib.Inflammatory intestinal diseasesArticle
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo examine the performance of the new 2022 American College of Rheumatology (ACR)/EULAR giant cell arteritis (GCA) classification criteria for diagnosis in routine clinical care.
methodsMulticentric retrospective observational study of patients referred to two ultrasound (US) fast track clinics. Patients with GCA were compared with unselected controls with suspected GCA. The gold standard for GCA diagnosis has been clinical confirmation after 6 months of follow-up. All patients underwent an US exam of temporal and extracranial arteries (carotid, subclavian and axillary) at baseline. Fluorodeoxyglucose-positron emission tomography/CT was performed according to standard clinician criteria. The performance of the new 2022 ACR/EULAR GCA classification criteria was evaluated in all patients with GCA across different subsets of the disease.
resultsA total of 319 patients (188 cases, 131 controls) were included for analysis (mean age 76 years, 58.9% females). Overall, the 2022 EULAR/ACR GCA classification criteria had a sensitivity of 92.6% and a specificity of 71.8%, using GCA clinical diagnosis as external criterion and the area under the curve (AUC) was 0.928 (95% CI 0.899 to 0.957). Isolated large vessel-GCA showed a sensitivity of 62.2% and a specificity of 71.8% (AUC 0.691 (0.592 to 0.790)), while biopsy-proven GCA showed a sensitivity of 100% and a specificity of 71.8% (AUC 0.989 (0.976 to 1)). Overall sensitivity and specificity of the 1990 ACR criteria was 53.2% and 80.2%, respectively.
conclusionsThe new 2022 ACR/EULAR GCA classification criteria showed adequate diagnostic accuracy in patients with suspected GCA under routine care, and an improvement on the sensitivity and specificity of the 1990 ACR classification criteria in all patient subsets.
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.