ArticleEuropean journal of nuclear medicine and molecular imaging2025
Direct comparison of the diagnostic accuracy of PET/CT, cranial MRI, ultrasound and temporal artery biopsy in giant cell arteritis.
Article in European journal of nuclear medicine and molecular imaging, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Digital [European journal of nuclear medicine and molecular imaging · 2026Article
- Eagle eyes on the human brain and beyond: PET at ultra-high spatial resolution.European journal of nuclear medicine and molecular imaging · 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
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of PET/CT, cranial MRI, ultrasound and temporal artery biopsy (TAB) in patients with suspected giant cell arteritis (GCA) in a direct comparison.
methodsConsecutive patients with a suspicion of GCA and at least 2 diagnostic tests ≤ 7 days after initiation of glucocorticoids between June 2021 and June 2024, were included retrospectively. The gold standard for the diagnosis of GCA was the judgment of experienced clinicians after a follow-up of ≥ 6 months. Examinations were compared within subgroups undergoing the same tests.
resultsSixty-one GCA patients and 50 patients with an alternative diagnosis were included. Combined cranial and large vessel PET/CT had the highest sensitivity (89% [95%CI 77-96%]) and specificity (98% [95%CI 88-100%]). Cranial PET/CT and TAB yielded a better sensitivity compared to temporal artery ultrasound (83% [95%CI 64-94%], 77% [95%CI 59-90%] and 55% [95%CI 36-74%], respectively, p = 0.023) without difference in specificity (100% [95%CI 100 - 84%], 95% [95%CI 76-100%] and 81% [95%CI 58-95%], respectively, p = 0.136). Cranial MRI had a sensitivity of 56% (95%CI 21-86%) and specificity of 82% (95%CI 48-98%). Large vessel PET/CT resulted in a better sensitivity compared to axillary artery ultrasound (68% [95%CI 45-86%] vs. 18% [95%CI 5-40%], p = 0.001) without difference in specificity (100% [95% CI 82-100%] vs. 90% [95%CI 67-99%], p = 0.50).
conclusionPET/CT had a better sensitivity than ultrasound and cranial MRI. TAB and cranial PET/CT had a similar diagnostic yield. CLINICAL TRIAL NUMBER: Not applicable.
Indexed as
Identifiers
40000462What 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.