ArticleTurkish journal of medical sciences2024
Evaluation of baseline F-18 FDG positron emission tomography in the diagnosis and assessment of giant cell arteritis.
Article in Turkish journal of medical sciences, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Headache as the most common manifestation of giant cell arteritis?: a systematic review with meta-analysis.Rheumatology international · 2025Pooled it
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background/aim: The aim of this study is to evaluate the baseline F18-FDG PET/CT findings of individuals diagnosed with giant cell arteritis (GCA) and to explore its association with clinical findings and classification criteria. Materials and methods: We analysed data from patients who underwent F18-FDG PET/CT scans to investigate large vessel (LV) involvement between 2010 and 2019. Only patients with a clinical diagnosis of GCA and at least 6 months of follow-up were included. We compared initial clinical features and laboratory findings based on the presence of LV vasculitis on PET/CT and the maximum standard uptake value (SUVmax) of vascular territories. Results: Twenty-nine patients (median age at diagnosis: 70, F/M: 24/5) were included in the study. Among them, 21 patients (72.4%) presented with cranial symptoms, while 8 patients (27.5%) had isolated LV-GCA. Twenty-two patients (75.9%) met the ACR/EULAR 2022 GCA classification criteria. LV vasculitis was detected on PET/CT in 23 patients (79.3%). A positive correlation was observed between SUVmax in the thoracic aorta and both CRP and ESR levels (r = 0.50, p = 0.026 and r = 0.63, p = 0.002, respectively). PET/CT positive patients were found to be younger (p = 0.016) and more frequently female (p = 0.017). They also exhibited fewer headaches (56.5% vs. 100%, p = 0.04), experienced fewer flares during follow-up (p = 0.03), and had a lower cumulative glucocorticoid dose at the 6th month (p = 0.036). Comparison of PET/CT-positive patients (n = 23) based on the fulfilment of the ACR/EULAR 2022 classification criteria revealed that patients who met these criteria were older (p = 0.02) and had significantly lower CRP levels at diagnosis (p = 0.02). Conclusion: The performance of F18-FDG PET/CT in diagnosing LV involvement in GCA is favourable, and the severity of FDG uptake in the vessel wall correlates with the acute phase response. Patients with extracranial involvement on PET/CT exhibit distinct features, including a younger age and female predominance. Additionally, these patients appear to experience fewer relapses and require lower doses of glucocorticoids. However, the clinical significance of PET/CT in patients who met ACR/EULAR classification criteria, predominantly consisting of patients with ischemic cranial symptoms, could not be determined in our study.
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.