Literature DB >> 9063237

Giant cell arteritis: validity and reliability of various diagnostic criteria.

S S Hayreh1, P A Podhajsky, R Raman, B Zimmerman.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: To ascertain the validity, reliability, sensitivity, and specificity of various signs and symptoms of and diagnostic tests for early diagnosis of giant cell arteritis.
METHODS: From 1973 to 1994, we studied 363 patients who had temporal artery biopsy for suspected giant cell arteritis. All patients underwent detailed clinical evaluation and had erythrocyte sedimentation rates determined; since 1985, 223 patients had their C-reactive protein values estimated. Erythrocyte sedimentation rate and C-reactive protein levels were also estimated in 749 and 138 control subjects, respectively. Signs and symptoms of giant cell arteritis, erythrocyte sedimentation rate, and C-reactive protein levels among patients with positive and negative biopsies were compared.
RESULTS: Of the 363 patients, temporal artery biopsy was positive in 106 and negative in 257. The odds of a positive biopsy were 9.0 times greater with jaw claudication (P < .0001), 3.4 times greater with neck pain (P = .0085), 2.0 times greater with an erythrocyte sedimentation rate of 47 to 107 mm/hour (P = .0454), 3.2 times greater with C-reactive protein above 2.45 mg/dl (P = .0208), and 2.0 times greater for age 75 years or more (P = .0105).
CONCLUSIONS: Clinical criteria most strongly suggestive of giant cell arteritis include jaw claudication, C-reactive protein above 2.45 mg/dl, neck pain, and an erythrocyte sedimentation rate of 47 mm/hour or more, in that order. C-reactive protein was more sensitive (100%) than erythrocyte sedimentation rate (92%) for detection of giant cell arteritis; erythrocyte sedimentation rate combined with C-reactive protein gave the best specificity (97%).

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  1997        PMID: 9063237     DOI: 10.1016/s0002-9394(14)70123-0

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Am J Ophthalmol        ISSN: 0002-9394            Impact factor:   5.258


  64 in total

1.  Ophthaproblem. Anterior ischemic optic neuropathy.

Authors:  S Sharma
Journal:  Can Fam Physician       Date:  1999-07       Impact factor: 3.275

2.  Temporal artery biopsy in the management of giant cell arteritis with neuro-ophthalmic complications.

Authors:  P Riordan-Eva; K Landau; J O'Day
Journal:  Br J Ophthalmol       Date:  2001-10       Impact factor: 4.638

3.  Giant Cell Arteritis.

Authors: 
Journal:  Curr Treat Options Cardiovasc Med       Date:  2000-06

4.  The use of magnetic resonance imaging in the diagnosis of suspected giant cell arteritis.

Authors:  S O Brannan; D Cheung; P I Murray; C Dewar; P Guest
Journal:  Br J Ophthalmol       Date:  2004-12       Impact factor: 4.638

5.  Parameters related to a positive test result for FDG PET(/CT) for large vessel vasculitis: a multicenter retrospective study.

Authors:  G A Hooisma; H Balink; P M Houtman; R H J A Slart; K D F Lensen
Journal:  Clin Rheumatol       Date:  2012-02-10       Impact factor: 2.980

Review 6.  Neuro-Ophthalmological Emergencies.

Authors:  João Lemos; Eric Eggenberger
Journal:  Neurohospitalist       Date:  2015-10

7.  [Temporal arteriitis. A difficult diagnosis?].

Authors:  M Mörchen; M Lang; R Ungerechts; K H Emmerich
Journal:  Ophthalmologe       Date:  2006-08       Impact factor: 1.059

8.  Scalp lesions in a 78-year-old woman.

Authors:  Renatta Varma; Anil D Patel
Journal:  CMAJ       Date:  2005-07-05       Impact factor: 8.262

Review 9.  Giant cell arteritis.

Authors:  Todd J Schwedt; David W Dodick; Richard J Caselli
Journal:  Curr Pain Headache Rep       Date:  2006-12

10.  Anterior ischemic optic neuropathy due to giant cell arteritis with normal inflammatory markers.

Authors:  Efdal Yoeruek; Peter Szurman; Olcay Tatar; Petra Weckerle; Helmut Wilhelm
Journal:  Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol       Date:  2008-04-02       Impact factor: 3.117

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.