OBJECTIVES: Temporal artery biopsy (TAB) is a reference test for the diagnosis of GCA but reveals inflammatory changes only in a subset of patients. The lack of knowledge of TAB sensitivity hampers comparisons with non-invasive techniques such as temporal artery ultrasonography. We performed a systematic literature review and meta-analysis to estimate the sensitivity of TAB in GCA and to identify factors that may influence the estimate. METHODS: A systematic literature review involved searching electronic databases and cross-references. Eligibility criteria included publications reporting at least 30 GCA cases fulfilling the original or modified 1990 ACR classification criteria. The pooled proportion of TAB-positive GCA cases was calculated by using aggregated-data meta-analysis with a random-effects model and assessment of heterogeneity with the I2 statistic. Subgroup analyses and meta-regression were used to examine the effect of patient and study characteristics on TAB positivity. RESULTS: Among 3820 publications screened, 32 studies (3092 patients) published during 1993-2017 were analysed. The pooled proportion of TAB-positive GCA cases was 77.3% (95% CI: 71.8, 81.9%), with high between-study heterogeneity (I2 = 90%). The proportion of TAB-positive cases was slightly higher in publications before than in 2012 and after (P = 0.001). CONCLUSION: The estimated sensitivity of 77% provides indirect evidence that TAB is not less sensitive than temporal artery imaging. The unexplained high between-study heterogeneity could result from differences in TAB sampling, processing or interpretation. The decrease in TAB-positive GCA cases over time could reflect an increasing propensity for clinicians to accept a GCA diagnosis without proof by TAB.
OBJECTIVES: Temporal artery biopsy (TAB) is a reference test for the diagnosis of GCA but reveals inflammatory changes only in a subset of patients. The lack of knowledge of TAB sensitivity hampers comparisons with non-invasive techniques such as temporal artery ultrasonography. We performed a systematic literature review and meta-analysis to estimate the sensitivity of TAB in GCA and to identify factors that may influence the estimate. METHODS: A systematic literature review involved searching electronic databases and cross-references. Eligibility criteria included publications reporting at least 30 GCA cases fulfilling the original or modified 1990 ACR classification criteria. The pooled proportion of TAB-positive GCA cases was calculated by using aggregated-data meta-analysis with a random-effects model and assessment of heterogeneity with the I2 statistic. Subgroup analyses and meta-regression were used to examine the effect of patient and study characteristics on TAB positivity. RESULTS: Among 3820 publications screened, 32 studies (3092 patients) published during 1993-2017 were analysed. The pooled proportion of TAB-positive GCA cases was 77.3% (95% CI: 71.8, 81.9%), with high between-study heterogeneity (I2 = 90%). The proportion of TAB-positive cases was slightly higher in publications before than in 2012 and after (P = 0.001). CONCLUSION: The estimated sensitivity of 77% provides indirect evidence that TAB is not less sensitive than temporal artery imaging. The unexplained high between-study heterogeneity could result from differences in TAB sampling, processing or interpretation. The decrease in TAB-positive GCA cases over time could reflect an increasing propensity for clinicians to accept a GCA diagnosis without proof by TAB.
Authors: K Bates Gribbons; Cristina Ponte; Anthea Craven; Joanna C Robson; Ravi Suppiah; Raashid Luqmani; Richard Watts; Peter A Merkel; Peter C Grayson Journal: Arthritis Rheumatol Date: 2020-03-05 Impact factor: 15.483
Authors: Robert M Verdijk; Werner J D Ouwendijk; Robert W A M Kuijpers; Georges M G M Verjans Journal: J Infect Dis Date: 2021-01-04 Impact factor: 5.226
Authors: Charles Oshinsky; Alison M Bays; Ingeborg Sacksen; Elizabeth Jernberg; R Eugene Zierler; Andreas P Diamantopoulos; Jean W Liew; Sarah H Chung; P Scott Pollock Journal: ACR Open Rheumatol Date: 2021-10-14
Authors: Kornelis S M van der Geest; Maria Sandovici; Elisabeth Brouwer; Sarah L Mackie Journal: JAMA Intern Med Date: 2020-10-01 Impact factor: 21.873