Observational studyRMD open2023
Impact of ultrasound limitation to assess aortitis in patients with giant cell arteritis: comparative study with FDG-PET/CT.
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 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- Vascular uptake on 18F-FDG PET/CT predicts relapse in new-onset PMR.Rheumatology (Oxford, England) · 2026Article
- Cranial and extracranial manifestations of giant cell arteritis: a single-center observational study.Rheumatology international · 2024Observational
- What is new in imaging to assist in the diagnosis of giant cell arteritis and Takayasu's arteritis since the EULAR and ACR/VF recommendations?Frontiers in medicine · 2024Review
- Diagnosing vasculitis with ultrasound: findings and pitfalls.Therapeutic advances in musculoskeletal disease · 2024Review
- An overview of 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography/computed tomography in giant cell arteritis.Frontiers in medicine · 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
8 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo determine the impact of ultrasound (US) intrinsic limitation to assess aortitis versus FDG-PET/CT in patients with US-proven giant cell arteritis (GCA) and to identify factors associated with aortic involvement.
methodsRetrospective observational study of patients referred to US fast-track clinics at two academic centres over a 4-year period. Only patients with GCA confirmed by US were included. Temporal arteries (TA) and extracranial arteries US were performed at baseline. FDG-PET/CT was performed according to clinician's criteria. An FDG artery uptake at the aorta higher than liver uptake was considered positive for aortitis.
resultsSeventy-two of 186 patients with US-proven GCA underwent an FDG-PET/CT; 29 (40.3%) had a positive FDG-PET/CT and 24 (33.3%) presented aortitis. Only 6 (20.7%) patients with positive FDG-PET/CT had negative US findings of large vessel (LV)-GCA. Among patients with aortitis in FDG-PET/CT, only two (8.3%) had negative US findings of LV-GCA. Patients with aortitis were younger (68.9 vs 81;p<0.001), more frequently females (79.2% vs 39.6%;p=0.002) and had higher platelets count (413.4 vs 311.1;p=0014). Patients with aortitis presented positive TA US less frequently (41.7% vs 83.3%;p<0.001), but more LV US involvement (91.7% vs 41.7%; p<0.001) versus patients without aortitis. None of the patients with aortitis exhibited visual symptoms (0% vs 31.2%;p=0.001).
conclusionsFDG-PET/CT can detect aortitis in one out of every three patients with US-proven GCA. However, a negative US examination for LV-GCA suggests a low risk of aortitis. Younger and female GCA patients with thrombocytosis, absence of visual manifestations and LV-GCA on US may more frequently present aortitis by FDG-PET/CT.
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.