Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37507207›Full record

ArticleRMD open2023

External validation of the 2022 ACR/EULAR classification criteria in patients with suspected giant cell arteritis in a Dutch fast-track clinic.

Marieke van Nieuwland, Lenny van Bon, Marloes Vermeer, Elisabeth Brouwer, Celina Alves

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in RMD open, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

6 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Diagnosing vasculitis with ultrasound: findings and pitfalls.Therapeutic advances in musculoskeletal disease · 2024
    Review
  5. Review
  6. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Marieke van NieuwlandDepartment of Rheumatology and Clinical Immunology, Ziekenhuisgroep Twente (Hospital Group Twente), Almelo, The Netherlands m.vnieuwland@zgt.nl.ORCID 0000-0002-2188-6117
Lenny van BonDepartment of Rheumatology and Clinical Immunology, Ziekenhuisgroep Twente (Hospital Group Twente), Almelo, The Netherlands.
Marloes VermeerZGT Academy, Ziekenhuisgroep Twente (Hospital Group Twente), Almelo, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0001-8496-9588
Elisabeth BrouwerDepartment of Rheumatology and Clinical Immunology, University of Groningen, University Medical Center Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0002-4809-0653
Celina AlvesDepartment of Rheumatology and Clinical Immunology, Ziekenhuisgroep Twente (Hospital Group Twente), Almelo, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0003-3498-8507

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveRecently the Diagnostic and Classification Criteria in Vasculitis Study group developed and published new American College of Rheumatology/EULAR classification criteria for giant cell arteritis (GCA). To test robustness in a different clinical setting and inform clinicians on performance in clinical practice, we aim to externally validate them in patients with a suspicion of GCA referred to our GCA fast-track clinic.

methodsPatients with suspected GCA from the Hospital Group Twente Early GCA in Twente prospective cohort were included. The clinical diagnosis of GCA verified after 6 months of follow-up made by the treating rheumatologist was used as a reference standard. A cut-off score of ≥6 was tested as described in the original article. Area under the receiver operating characteristics curve, sensitivity and specificity were calculated.

resultsIn total, 133 patients with suspected GCA were included, of whom 53 were diagnosed with GCA and 80 patients were not diagnosed with GCA. The area under the curve (AUC) was 0.96 (95% CI 0.92 to 0.98). Using the proposed cut-off score of≥6, we found that sensitivity was 98.0% (95% CI 89.9% to 100%) and specificity was 57.5% (95% CI 45.9% to 68.5%). The majority of misclassified patients without GCA had classification scores of 6 and 7 as clinical and/or laboratory criteria were often present in our non-GCA population.

conclusionOur results showed an excellent AUC and sensitivity with a moderate specificity for classification of GCA patients. Considering our relevant study population, we found that the new classification criteria might also be useful for diagnostic purposes, albeit with careful interpretation.

Indexed as

Giant Cell ArteritisHumansProspective StudiesROC CurveSensitivity and SpecificityTemporal ArteriesEpidemiologyGiant Cell ArteritisSystemic vasculitis

Identifiers

PMID37507207
PMCPMC10387624

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.