ArticleFrontiers in medicine2024
Diagnostic accuracy of OGUS, Southend halo score and halo count in giant cell arteritis.
Article in Frontiers in medicine, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Imaging-guided stratification in giant cell arteritis: prognostic and therapeutic implications.Therapeutic advances in musculoskeletal disease · 2026Review
- A prospective cohort study evaluating the role of quantifying sonographic inflammatory changes in GCA.Rheumatology advances in practice · 2025Article
- 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
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objectives: Ultrasound has a paramount role in the diagnostic assessment of giant cell arteritis (GCA); Southend halo score (HS), halo count (HC), and OMERACT GCA Ultrasonography Score (OGUS) are the first quantitative scores proposed in this setting. The aim of this study was therefore to assess the diagnostic accuracy of these scores in a real-life scenario, as well as to evaluate their optimal cutoff, also with respect to disease extent, sex, and age. Methods: We retrospectively collected clinical, serological, and US findings of all patients referred for the first time to our vasculitis clinic in the suspicion of GCA. Results: A total of 79 patients were included, and a definite diagnosis of GCA was made in 43 patients. For OGUS, the ROC curve showed an optimal cut point of 0.81 (sensitivity 79.07% and specificity 97.22%). For HC and HS, the optimal cutoff values were > 1.5 (sensitivity 76.7% and specificity 97.2%) and > 14.5 (sensitivity 74.4% and specificity 97.2%), respectively. No relevant differences were assessed when patients were stratified according to disease extent, age, and sex. Compression sign (CS) was positive in 34 of 38 patients with cranial GCA and negative in all controls and LV-GCA. Conclusion: All three scores display good sensitivity and excellent specificity, although the cutoff was slightly different than proposed. In particular, for OGUS, a threshold of 0.81 could be employed for diagnostic purposes, although it was developed solely for monitoring. Due to its high sensitivity and specificity, CS should be always assessed in all patients referred with a suspicion of cranial 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.