ArticleRMD open2026
Time to diagnosis in large vessel vasculitis: insights from a retrospective study at a tertiary rheumatology centre.
Article in RMD open, 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
14 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo evaluate the diagnostic pathway of patients affected by large vessel vasculitis (LVV) and to determine factors associated with the time to diagnosis including referring and previously consulted medical specialties.
methodsThis retrospective single-centre study enrolled patients diagnosed with giant cell arteritis (GCA) and Takayasu arteritis (TAK) between January 2014 and May 2025. Clinical, laboratory and referral data were retrieved from medical records. Time to diagnosis was defined as the interval between the onset of first LVV-related symptoms and the confirmed diagnosis. Factors associated with diagnostic delay were analysed by multivariate Cox regression. Temporal differences were visualised using Kaplan-Meier curves.
resultsIn total, 501 patients were included (GCA n=488; TAK n=13). Compared with GCA (89 days (IQR 31-184)), the median time to diagnosis for TAK (245 days (IQR 31-1308)) was longer. Presentation with typical cranial symptoms was associated with a shorter diagnostic interval (HR 1.27, p
conclusionDiagnostic delay varies by subtype and clinical presentation. Time to diagnosis was longer in TAK compared with GCA, whereas typical cranial symptoms facilitate earlier diagnosis. Increasing awareness is crucial to minimise diagnostic delay and prevent organ damage.
Indexed as
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.