ArticleEuropean journal of nuclear medicine and molecular imaging2026
Diagnostic accuracy of
Article in European journal of nuclear medicine and molecular imaging, 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
26 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of
methodsThis retrospective multicentre study included 232 patients with inflammatory rheumatic diseases (150 PMR, 50 axial spondylarthritis AxSpA and 32 other rheumatic diseases) divided into training and external validation cohorts. The gold standard final diagnoses were those that were upheld by an experienced rheumatologist, at least at 6 months' follow up, taking into account all available information (clinical data and evolution, radiological, biological, PET-CT) but blinded for the scoring system.
resultsThe highest diagnostic accuracy for PMR was observed with the Leuven, Leuven/Groningen, Besançon and Brest scores (AUC 0.83-0.89 in training and 0.67-0.69 in external validation cohorts). The Leuven/Groningen sensitivity and specificity were respectively 94.7%/67.9% (training) and 72.2%/55.2% (validation). The sensitivity of Pean de Ponfilly score was lower (78.9% (training) and 55.6% (validation)). The diagnostic performance of Brest was quite similar to Leuven scores (96.4%/66% in training; 86.1%/51.7% in validation). Heidelberg and Saint-Étienne algorithms demonstrated high sensitivity with low specificity.
conclusionLeuven/Groningen and Brest scores may represent promising tools for distinguishing PMR from other rheumatic diseases, given their ease of use and diagnostic performance.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42337036What 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.