Baseline clinical predictors of an ultimate giant cell arteritis diagnosis in patients referred to temporal artery biopsy
Clinical Rheumatology, ISSN: 1434-9949, Vol: 35, Issue: 7, Page: 1817-1822
2016
- 26Citations
- 26Captures
Metric Options: Counts1 Year3 YearSelecting the 1-year or 3-year option will change the metrics count to percentiles, illustrating how an article or review compares to other articles or reviews within the selected time period in the same journal. Selecting the 1-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year. Selecting the 3-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year plus the two years prior.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Metrics Details
- Citations26
- Citation Indexes26
- 26
- CrossRef21
- Captures26
- Readers26
- 26
Article Description
The diagnosis of giant cell arteritis (GCA) is based on clinical grounds and confirmed by characteristic histological findings on temporal artery biopsy (TAB). Patients may be diagnosed with GCA based on clinical grounds only, despite negative histological findings. We aimed to investigate which baseline clinical and laboratory features best predict an ultimate diagnosis of giant cell arteritis among patients referred to TAB. We retrospectively analyzed 224 patients who underwent TAB in our hospital between 2000 and 2014. Patients were diagnosed with GCA if TAB was positive for GCA, or by clinical grounds only despite a negative biopsy, provided they fulfilled the American College of Rheumatology 1990 criteria. Baseline clinical and laboratory features were obtained from medical records. Predictors of an ultimate GCA diagnosis were investigated. Overall, 82 patients were diagnosed with GCA—57 had histological evidence of GCA and 25 were diagnosed with GCA despite a negative biopsy. One hundred and forty-two patients were not diagnosed with GCA. Predictors of an eventual diagnosis of GCA in a multivariate logistic regression analysis were headache (OR = 6; p < 0.001), jaw claudication (OR 4.5; p = 0.007), erythrocyte sedimentation rate (ESR) (OR = 1.5; p = 0.032) and platelet count (OR = 1.74; p = 0.004). Among patients referred to TAB, headache, jaw claudication, ESR, and thrombocyte levels are predictors for an ultimate diagnosis of GCA. These clinical and laboratory features should be considered when contemplating the diagnosis and treatment of GCA.
Bibliographic Details
http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?partnerID=HzOxMe3b&scp=84959346315&origin=inward; http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10067-016-3221-1; http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26925851; http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s10067-016-3221-1; https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10067-016-3221-1; https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10067-016-3221-1
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Provide Feedback
Have ideas for a new metric? Would you like to see something else here?Let us know