GuidelineAdvances in rheumatology (London, England)2025
2025 Chinese guideline for the imaging diagnosis and evaluation of Takayasu arteritis.
Guideline in Advances in rheumatology (London, England), 2025. 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.
- Amygdalar metabolic activity associated with cerebrovascular events and carotid-vertebral artery stenosis in takayasu arteritis.European journal of nuclear medicine and molecular imaging · 2026Article
- Shear wave elastography combined with serum IL-6 and MMP-9 for evaluating disease activity in Takayasu arteritis with carotid artery involvement.Clinical rheumatology · 2026Article
- Visualization analysis of the use of traditional Chinese medicine in the diagnosis and treatment of rare diseases in mainland China based on CiteSpace.Intractable & rare diseases research · 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
44 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundTakayasu arteritis (TAK) presents as systemic vasculitis. Imaging is crucial for the diagnosis and evaluation of TAK, but the rational selection of imaging methods and interpretation of imaging results are major challenges in clinical practice, which can affect treatment decisions. This guideline aims to establish standardized protocols for selecting imaging modalities (as well as interpreting their findings) in TAK.
methodsRelevant clinical questions were formulated by an expert panel. Systematic reviews of evidence published from database establishment to 31 October 2023 were done. The grading system set by the Oxford University Evidence-Based Medicine Center was employed to assess the quality of evidence. Recommendations were developed through consensus using the Delphi method.
resultsSeventeen recommendation statements were developed based on evidence summaries and consensus. The first four recommendations focused on overarching principles. Recommendations 5 to 14 covered the advantages and disadvantages of different imaging modalities, as well as the selection of imaging modalities in the diagnosis and evaluation of TAK, including ultrasound (three statements), magnetic resonance angiography (two), computed tomography angiography (two), positron emission tomography/computed tomography (two), and digital subtraction angiography (one). Recommendations 15 to 17 focused on the selection of imaging methods for special populations and organ perfusion.
conclusionThese recommendations could help to standardize the use of imaging modalities by clinicians in the diagnosis and evaluation of TAK. CLINICAL TRIAL NUMBER: Not applicable.
Indexed as
Identifiers
40462247What 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.