ArticleZeitschrift fur Rheumatologie2024
Recommendations for defining giant cell arteritis fast-track clinics. English version.
Article in Zeitschrift fur Rheumatologie, 2024. 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.
- Characterizing the Role of Ophthalmologists in the Care of Patients With Suspected Giant Cell Arteritis at an Academic Medical Center.Journal of neuro-ophthalmology : the official journal of the North American Neuro-Ophthalmology Society · 2026Article
- Diagnostic Challenges and Modern Therapeutic Strategies in Giant Cell Arteritis.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Glucocorticoid discontinuation and clinical phenotypes in patients with giant cell arteritis: A retrospective cohort study from a fast track clinic.Therapeutic advances in musculoskeletal disease · 2026Article
- Understanding the patient experience of newly diagnosed giant cell arteritis.Rheumatology advances in practice · 2026Article
- Frequency, diagnosis, and pharmacological treatment of giant cell arteritis in Germany: database analysis of medical insurance data.Therapeutic advances in musculoskeletal disease · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
A German expert committee recommends defining fast-track clinics (FTC) for the acute diagnosis of giant cell arteritis (GCA) as follows: easy and prompt reachability at least on weekdays, scheduling appointments ideally within 24 h, examination by a specialist with GCA expertise, ≥ 2 experts per FTC, ≥ 50 patients with suspected GCA per year, sonologists with ≥ 300 (≥ 50) temporal and axillary artery examinations, adherence to standard operating procedures, availability of an ≥ 18 (≥ 15) MHz and a lower frequency linear ultrasound probe, and collaboration with partners for neurology and ophthalmology consultations, magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), positron emission tomography-computed tomography (PET-CT, possibly CT), and for temporal artery biopsy.
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.