ArticleClinical rheumatology2024
Assessment and comparison of probability scores to predict giant cell arteritis.
Article in Clinical rheumatology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 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
8 citing papers in PubMed, 10 citations in OpenAlex.
- Article
- Diagnostic Challenges and Modern Therapeutic Strategies in Giant Cell Arteritis.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Understanding the patient experience of newly diagnosed giant cell arteritis.Rheumatology advances in practice · 2026Article
- An Atypical Presentation of Giant Cell Arteritis in an Elderly Patient: Diplopia and Fever Masked by Pneumonia.Cureus · 2025Article
- A Clinical Probability-Based, Stepwise Algorithm for the Diagnosis of Giant Cell Arteritis: Study Protocol and Baseline Characteristics of the First 50 Patients Included in the Prospective Validation Study with Focus on Cranial Symptoms.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Article
- Optic Nerve Sheath Measurement on Ultrasound: A Novel Diagnostic Test for Giant Cell Arteritis.ACR open rheumatology · 2024Article
- Optic nerve sheath measurement to monitor disease activity in giant cell arteritis: a pilot study.Clinical rheumatology · 2024Article
- Multimodality imaging to assess diagnosis and evaluate complications of large vesselarteritis.Journal of nuclear cardiology : official publication of the American Society of Nuclear Cardiology · 2024Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION/
objectivesTo assess and compare the performance of the giant cell arteritis probability score (GCAPS), Ing score, Bhavsar-Khalidi score (BK score), color Doppler ultrasound (CDUS) halo count, and halo score, to predict a final diagnosis of giant cell arteritis (GCA).
methodA prospective cohort study was conducted from April to December 2021. Patients with suspected new-onset GCA referred to our quaternary CDUS clinic were included. Data required to calculate each clinical and CDUS probability score was systematically collected at the initial visit. Final diagnosis of GCA was confirmed clinically 6 months after the initial visit, by two blinded vasculitis specialists. Diagnostic accuracy and receiver operator characteristic (ROC) curves for each clinical and CDUS prediction scores were assessed.
resultsTwo hundred patients with suspected new-onset GCA were included: 58 with confirmed GCA and 142 without GCA. All patients with GCA satisfied the 2022 ACR/EULAR classification criteria. A total of 5/15 patients with GCA had a positive temporal artery biopsy. For clinical probability scores, the GCAPS showed the best sensitivity (Se, 0.983), whereas the BK score showed the best specificity (Sp, 0.711). As for CDUS, a halo count of 1 or more was found to have a Se of 0.966 and a Sp of 0.979. Combining concordant results of clinical and CDUS prediction scores showed excellent performance in predicting a final diagnosis of GCA.
conclusionUsing a combination of clinical score and CDUS halo count provided an accurate GCA prediction method which should be used in the setting of GCA Fast-Track clinics. Key Points • In this prospective cohort of participants with suspected GCA, 3 clinical prediction tools and 2 ultrasound scores were compared head-to-head to predict a final diagnosis of GCA. • For clinical prediction tools, the giant cell arteritis probability score (GCAPS) had the highest sensitivity, whereas the Bhavsar-Khalidi score (BK score) had the highest specificity. • Ultrasound halo count was both sensitive and specific in predicting GCA. • Combination of a clinical prediction tool such as the GCAPS, with ultrasound halo count, provides an accurate method to predict GCA.
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.