BACKGROUND: Giant-cell arteritis is a diagnostic challenge. PURPOSE: To determine the diagnostic performance of ultrasonography for giant-cell arteritis. DATA SOURCES: Studies published up to April 2004 in the MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane databases; reference lists; and direct contact with investigators. STUDY SELECTION: Studies in any language that examined temporal artery ultrasonography for diagnosis of giant-cell arteritis, enrolled at least 5 patients, and used biopsy or the American College of Rheumatology (ACR) criteria as the reference standard. DATA EXTRACTION: Two reviewers independently graded methodologic quality and abstracted data on sensitivity and specificity of ultrasonography for giant-cell arteritis. Diagnostic performance was determined for the halo sign, stenosis, or occlusion and for any of these ultrasonographic abnormalities. DATA SYNTHESIS: Weighted sensitivity and specificity estimates and summary receiver-operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis were used. Twenty-three studies, involving a total of 2036 patients, met the inclusion criteria. The weighted sensitivity and specificity of the halo sign were 69% (95% CI, 57% to 79%) and 82% (CI, 75% to 87%), respectively, compared with biopsy and 55% (CI, 36% to 73%) and 94% (CI, 82% to 98%), respectively, compared with ACR criteria. Stenosis or occlusion was an almost equally sensitive marker compared with either biopsy (sensitivity, 68% [CI, 49% to 82%]) or ACR criteria (sensitivity, 66% [CI, 32% to 89%]). Consideration of any vessel abnormality nonsignificantly improved diagnostic performance compared with ACR criteria. Between-study heterogeneity was significant, but summary ROC curves were consistent with weighted estimates. When the pretest probability of giant-cell arteritis is 10%, negative results on ultrasonography practically exclude the disease (post-test probability, 2% to 5% for various analyses). LIMITATIONS: The primary studies were small and of modest quality and had considerable heterogeneity. CONCLUSION: Ultrasonography may be helpful in diagnosing giant-cell arteritis, but cautious interpretation of the test results based on clinical presentation and pretest probability of the disease is imperative.
BACKGROUND:Giant-cell arteritis is a diagnostic challenge. PURPOSE: To determine the diagnostic performance of ultrasonography for giant-cell arteritis. DATA SOURCES: Studies published up to April 2004 in the MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane databases; reference lists; and direct contact with investigators. STUDY SELECTION: Studies in any language that examined temporal artery ultrasonography for diagnosis of giant-cell arteritis, enrolled at least 5 patients, and used biopsy or the American College of Rheumatology (ACR) criteria as the reference standard. DATA EXTRACTION: Two reviewers independently graded methodologic quality and abstracted data on sensitivity and specificity of ultrasonography for giant-cell arteritis. Diagnostic performance was determined for the halo sign, stenosis, or occlusion and for any of these ultrasonographic abnormalities. DATA SYNTHESIS: Weighted sensitivity and specificity estimates and summary receiver-operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis were used. Twenty-three studies, involving a total of 2036 patients, met the inclusion criteria. The weighted sensitivity and specificity of the halo sign were 69% (95% CI, 57% to 79%) and 82% (CI, 75% to 87%), respectively, compared with biopsy and 55% (CI, 36% to 73%) and 94% (CI, 82% to 98%), respectively, compared with ACR criteria. Stenosis or occlusion was an almost equally sensitive marker compared with either biopsy (sensitivity, 68% [CI, 49% to 82%]) or ACR criteria (sensitivity, 66% [CI, 32% to 89%]). Consideration of any vessel abnormality nonsignificantly improved diagnostic performance compared with ACR criteria. Between-study heterogeneity was significant, but summary ROC curves were consistent with weighted estimates. When the pretest probability of giant-cell arteritis is 10%, negative results on ultrasonography practically exclude the disease (post-test probability, 2% to 5% for various analyses). LIMITATIONS: The primary studies were small and of modest quality and had considerable heterogeneity. CONCLUSION: Ultrasonography may be helpful in diagnosing giant-cell arteritis, but cautious interpretation of the test results based on clinical presentation and pretest probability of the disease is imperative.
Authors: Kevin Barraclough; Christian D Mallen; Toby Helliwell; Samantha L Hider; Bhaskar Dasgupta Journal: Br J Gen Pract Date: 2012-06 Impact factor: 5.386
Authors: T A Bley; T Ness; K Warnatz; A Frydrychowicz; M Uhl; J Hennig; M Langer; M Markl Journal: Clin Rheumatol Date: 2006-10-05 Impact factor: 2.980
Authors: T A Bley; M Uhl; J Carew; M Markl; D Schmidt; H-H Peter; M Langer; O Wieben Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2007-09-20 Impact factor: 3.825
Authors: Antoine G Sreih; Fatma Alibaz-Oner; Tanaz A Kermani; Sibel Z Aydin; Peter F Cronholm; Trocon Davis; Ebony Easley; Ahmet Gul; Alfred Mahr; Carol A McAlear; Nataliya Milman; Joanna C Robson; Gunnar Tomasson; Haner Direskeneli; Peter A Merkel Journal: J Rheumatol Date: 2017-09-01 Impact factor: 4.666