ArticleFrontiers in radiology2025
2D-cranial T1-black-blood MRI in suspected giant cell arteritis-measurement of vessel wall thickness does not give a diagnostic advantage compared to visual scoring alone.
Article in Frontiers in radiology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
Objectives: To compare two established scoring schemes for the 2D-T1-weighted "black-blood" MRI sequence (T1-BB) for superficial cranial arteries (SCA) in the diagnosis of giant cell arteritis (GCA). Methods: Ten arterial segments were evaluated in T1-BB images with two different methods: a visual semiquantitative scheme (T1-BB-VISUAL) and a composite scheme that included both the semiquantitative assessment and a quantitative wall thickness measurement (T1-BB-COMP). The expert clinical diagnosis after ≥6 months of follow-up was the diagnostic reference standard. Diagnostic accuracy and agreement on the segment and patient levels were evaluated for the two different rating schemes. Results: Retrospectively, 151 consecutive patients with clinically suspected GCA were included. The study cohort consisted of 82 patients with and 69 without GCA. For the T1-BB-COMP and the T1-BB-VISUAL, the sensitivity was 81.7% vs. 87.8% ( Conclusion: In suspected GCA, the additional measurement of the wall thickness of SCAs in 2D-T1-BB MRI does not lead to a better diagnostic performance compared to visual semiquantitative scoring alone. Visual scoring is preferred due to higher efficiency and reliability.
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.