ArticleRheumatology international2025
Normal inflammatory markers in giant cell arteritis: a diagnostic blind spot.
Article in Rheumatology international, 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.
- Diagnostic Challenges and Modern Therapeutic Strategies in Giant Cell Arteritis.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- The characteristics of giant cell arteritis patients that went blind in spite of treatment: case based narrative literature review.Rheumatology international · 2026Review
- Diagnostic and prognostic utility of complete blood count-derived ratios in giant cell arteritis: a retrospective fast-track clinic cohort study.Rheumatology international · 2025Article
- Case Report: A rare case of ocular giant cell arteritis with bilateral orbital inflammation and diagnostic challenges.Frontiers in neurologyArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveGiant cell arteritis (GCA) is a vasculitis requiring urgent diagnosis. Although Erythrocyte Sedimentation Rate (ESR) and C-Reactive Protein (CRP) are important for making the diagnosis, some GCA patients have normal inflammatory markers. We retrospectively analyzed GCA patients with normal versus elevated inflammatory markers to evaluate for differences in clinical presentation and vascular ultrasound to aid in the diagnosis of GCA patients with normal ESR and CRP.
methodsWe conducted a retrospective study with patients diagnosed with GCA through a Fast Track Clinic (FTC). Clinical presentation and ultrasound results were compared in 23 GCA patients with normal ESR and CRP to 107 GCA patients with elevated ESR and/or CRP. We incorporated an additional 159 patients without GCA to calculate the sensitivity and specificity of ESR and CRP for detecting GCA. Data were analyzed using Pearson Chi-square, Fisher's exact test and ROC curves.
resultsCRP is 74% sensitive and 49% specific (AUC = 0.675) compared to ESR with 48% sensitivity and 72% specificity (AUC = 0.644) for detecting GCA. Patients with a longer period between onset of symptoms and measurement of markers (mean of 35 versus 20 days) were more likely to have normal markers (p = 0.03).
conclusionGCA patients present similarly regardless of inflammatory markers. Patients with normal inflammatory markers had a significantly longer time between symptom onset and inflammatory marker measurement. ESR and CRP have some diagnostic accuracy, low inflammatory markers should not preclude a GCA work-up.
Indexed as
Identifiers
40682608What 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.