ArticleRheumatology international2025
New versus old: comparison of the 2022 ACR/EULAR versus the 1990 ACR classification criteria for giant cell arteritis in a real-world cohort.
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 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- The characteristics of giant cell arteritis patients that went blind in spite of treatment: case based narrative literature review.Rheumatology international · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThis study compares the diagnostic performance of the 1990 American College of Rheumatology (ACR) criteria and the 2022 ACR/European League Against Rheumatism (EULAR) classification criteria for giant cell arteritis (GCA), with focus on the complementary roles of MRI and ultrasound imaging.
methodsA retrospective analysis was conducted on 192 patients presenting with suspected GCA at a tertiary care center between 2017 and 2022. Both classification criteria were applied to all cases, and their sensitivity, specificity, and diagnostic accuracy were compared. The diagnostic contribution of MRI versus ultrasound for bilateral axillary involvement was systematically analyzed.
resultsAmong 192 patients, 99 were diagnosed with GCA. The 1990 ACR criteria demonstrated high specificity (0.96, 95%CI: 0.92-1) but limited sensitivity (0.62, 95% CI: 0.52–0.72), primarily failing to classify extracranial large-vessel GCA cases. The 2022 ACR/EULAR criteria showed improved sensitivity (0.97, 95% CI: 0.93-1) and good specificity (0.82, 95% CI: 0.74–0.89). MRI and ultrasound demonstrated comparable performance for bilateral axillary involvement, with each modality exclusively identifying 21 patients who met classification criteria. MRI alone achieved 95% sensitivity (95% CI: 91–99%), while ultrasound alone achieved 94% sensitivity (95% CI: 89–99%). Threshold adjustment from 6 to 7 points improved specificity (0.92, 95% CI: 0.87–0.97) while maintaining high sensitivity.
conclusionThe 2022 ACR/EULAR criteria outperform the 1990 ACR criteria, particularly for extracranial large-vessel involvement. MRI and ultrasound provide complementary diagnostic contributions with comparable performance, suggesting either modality can effectively support the updated classification criteria.
Indexed as
Identifiers
41081910What 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.