ArticleJournal of neuro-ophthalmology : the official journal of the North American Neuro-Ophthalmology Society2026
Characterizing the Role of Ophthalmologists in the Care of Patients With Suspected Giant Cell Arteritis at an Academic Medical Center.
Article in Journal of neuro-ophthalmology : the official journal of the North American Neuro-Ophthalmology Society, 2026. 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
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundEvaluation and treatment of giant cell arteritis (GCA) is multidisciplinary, with high morbidity if not promptly treated. Ophthalmologists may be involved due to the presence of visual symptoms and/or ischemic vision loss. The goal of this study was to characterize the health care journey of patients suspected of having GCA and elucidate the role that ophthalmologists and other specialists play in their prebiopsy evaluation.
methodsThis retrospective study included patients at a single large academic institution who underwent a temporal artery biopsy (TAB) as part of a GCA evaluation over a 10-year period. Demographics, symptoms, laboratory testing, ancillary imaging, treatment initiation, biopsy results, and final diagnosis were extracted from the medical record. Types of specialists involved in different aspects of the prebiopsy evaluation for GCA were tabulated. A Sankey plot was created to visualize the included patients' journeys.
resultsAmong 162 subjects undergoing TAB (average age of 74 years SD 11.3, 64.8% female, 60% ocular symptoms), 43 were diagnosed with GCA (30 positive TAB). Subjects saw an average of 3.31 providers (SD 1.15) from different specialties during their prebiopsy evaluation, with multiple patients seeing 6 different specialists. Within our cohort, 51% (n = 83) of patients saw ophthalmologists before TAB and 33% (n = 53) had their TAB performed by an ophthalmologist. Seeing an ophthalmologist during the prebiopsy period was not associated with a positive biopsy result (P = 0.80) or prebiopsy steroid treatment for GCA (P = 0.90).
conclusionsGCA suspects have a convoluted journey through our health care system and are commonly seen by multiple medical subspecialists during their evaluation. This may benefit patients due to multiple expert perspectives or may contribute to fragmentation of care and delays in treatment. These results reinforce the number of subspecialists, including ophthalmologists, who play a role in the evaluation of GCA. Multidisciplinary fast-track GCA clinics can both provide access to subspeciality care and simplify the patient journey.
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.