ArticleRMD open2023
External validation of the 2022 ACR/EULAR classification criteria in patients with suspected giant cell arteritis in a Dutch fast-track clinic.
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.
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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- 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
- Incidence and clinical manifestations of giant cell arteritis in Spain: results of the ARTESER register.RMD open · 2024Article
- Diagnosing vasculitis with ultrasound: findings and pitfalls.Therapeutic advances in musculoskeletal disease · 2024Review
- Giant Cell Arteritis after COVID-19 Vaccination with Long-Term Follow-Up: A Case Report and Review of the Literature.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2023Review
- Giant cell temporal arteritis: a clinicopathological study with emphasis on unnecessary biopsy.Frontiers in ophthalmology · 2023Article
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
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
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.