ArticleRheumatology international2025
Temporal artery biopsy and temporal artery ultrasound inter-rater agreement for the diagnosis of giant cell arteritis: an ancillary analysis from the multicentre prospective ECHORTON study.
Article in Rheumatology international, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT02703922 (Evaluation of a Diagnostic Strategy for Giant Cell Arteritis Based on Color Doppler Ultrasound of Temporal Arteries), which is not on this 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.
Evaluation of a Diagnostic Strategy for Giant Cell Arteritis Based on Color Doppler Ultrasound of Temporal Arteries
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
Abstract
Temporal artery biopsy (TAB) and, more recently, temporal artery ultrasound are recommended for the diagnosis of giant cell arteritis (GCA). The inter-rater agreement for TAB is poorly reported, and agreement for ultrasound is variable. A prospective study, the ECHORTON study, evaluated a diagnostic strategy for GCA that used temporal artery ultrasound as the first-line diagnostic test and TAB for ultrasound-negative patients. Clinical expertise served as the reference method. We propose assessing the inter-rater agreement in interpreting TAB and ultrasound images collected in this study. From 2016 to 2020, 165 patients with high suspicion of GCA were enrolled in the ECHORTON study at four general hospitals and two university hospitals. Pathologists and vascular medicine experts independently reviewed TAB and ultrasounds, respectively. The TAB samples were stained with eosin and silver and classified as positive, negative, or equivocal for GCA. Ultrasound results were considered positive when halos were detected around the lumen of both temporal arteries using 9-4 to 18-6 MHz linear probes. This study involved double-blind analysis of 4384 sections from 77 TAB, and 5781 images from 132 ultrasound scans. Kappa coefficients were 0.75 [95% CI: 0.56-0.94] for temporal artery biopsy and 0.73 [95% CI: 0.56-0.90] for temporal artery ultrasound. The reproducibility of interpretations showed heterogeneity across centres, with agreement ranging from fair to excellent. Overall, both TAB and ultrasound demonstrated good inter-rater agreement for GCA diagnosis, though agreement levels varied from fair to excellent across hospitals. Trial registration: The ECHORTON study was registered in ClinicalTrials.gov under the number NCT02703922 on March 3, 2016.
Indexed as
Identifiers
41144031What 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.