ArticleRMD open2025
Reliability of the OMERACT Giant cell arteritis Ultrasonography Score (OGUS): results of a patient-based exercise involving experts and non-experts in vascular ultrasonography.
Article in RMD open, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Prospective Diagnostic Accuracy of Focused Frontal-Branch Ultrasonography in Giant Cell Arteritis.ACR open rheumatology · 2026Article
- Large vessel vasculitis reframed: integrating conceptual shifts and evidence into practice for Takayasu arteritis and giant cell arteritis.Journal of rheumatic diseases · 2026Review
- Patient characteristics, disease manifestations and diagnostic findings of consecutive patients suspected of Giant Cell Arteritis (GCA) - retrospective experience from a fast-track clinic in Israel.Clinical rheumatology · 2026Article
- Temporal artery biopsy and temporal artery ultrasound inter-rater agreement for the diagnosis of giant cell arteritis: an ancillary analysis from the multicentre prospective ECHORTON study.Rheumatology international · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
32 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo test the reliability of the Outcome Measures in Rheumatology Giant cell arteritis (GCA) Ultrasonography Score (OGUS) and other composite scores in a patient-based exercise involving experts and non-experts in vascular ultrasonography.
methodsSix GCA patients were scanned twice (two rounds separated ≥3 hours) by 12 experts and 12 non-experts. Non-experts received 90 min of theoretical and 240 min of practical training between rounds 1 and 2. Ultrasonography was conducted on temporal arteries (common superficial, frontal and parietal branches) and axillary arteries bilaterally to calculate the OGUS, the Southend score and the Halo count. Inter-reader and intra-reader reliability were assessed by intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC).
resultsMean age of GCA patients was 78±5.1 years, 2 (33.3%) were women, and all were in clinical remission. Expert inter-reader ICC of the OGUS was 0.60 in both rounds, 0.40 in round 1 and 0.51 in round 2 for the Southend score and 0.45 and 0.52, respectively, for the Halo count. Median ICCs for intra-reader reliability were 0.86, 0.73 and 0.65 for the OGUS, Southend score and Halo count, respectively.For non-experts, inter-reader ICCs in round 1 were 0.20 for the OGUS, 0.20 for a normalised Southend score (=score divided by available segments) and 0.35 for a normalised Halo count. After training, inter-reader reliability ICCs improved to 0.52, 0.29 and 0.54, respectively.
conclusionInter-reader reliability was fair to moderate, and intra-reader reliability was good for OGUS, Southend score and Halo count among experts. Inter-reader reliability of non-experts in vascular ultrasonography improved after the training.
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.