Fotini B. Karassa, MD; Miltiadis I. Matsagas, MD; Wolfgang A. Schmidt, MD; John P.A. Ioannidis, MD
Acknowledgments: The authors thank Xavier Puéchal, MD; Matthias Reinhard, MD; and Helen Murgatroyd, MD, for providing clarifications or additional data on their studies and for reviewing the final draft. They also thank Efi Souli, MA; Evangelos Douitsis, MD; and Dionysis Spyridakos, MD, for reviewing German, Italian, and Japanese articles, respectively.
Potential Financial Conflicts of Interest: None disclosed.
Requests for Single Reprints: John P.A. Ioannidis, MD, Department of Hygiene and Epidemiology, University of Ioannina School of Medicine, 45110 Ioannina, Greece; e-mail, firstname.lastname@example.org.
Current Author Addresses: Drs. Karassa and Ioannidis: Department of Hygiene and Epidemiology, University of Ioannina School of Medicine, 45110 Ioannina, Greece.
Dr. Matsagas: Department of Surgery—Vascular Surgery Unit, University of Ioannina School of Medicine, 45110 Ioannina, Greece.
Dr. Schmidt: Medical Center for Rheumatology Berlin—Buch, Karower Strasse 11, 13125 Berlin, Germany.
Giant-cell arteritis is a diagnostic challenge.
To determine the diagnostic performance of ultrasonography for giant-cell arteritis.
Studies published up to April 2004 in the MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane databases; reference lists; and direct contact with investigators.
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.
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.
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).
The primary studies were small and of modest quality and had considerable heterogeneity.
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.
Karassa FB, Matsagas MI, Schmidt WA, Ioannidis JP. Meta-Analysis: Test Performance of Ultrasonography for Giant-Cell Arteritis. Ann Intern Med. 2005;142:359–369. doi: 10.7326/0003-4819-142-5-200503010-00011
Download citation file:
Published: Ann Intern Med. 2005;142(5):359-369.
Giant Cell Arteritis/Polymyalgia Rheumatica, Neurology, Rheumatology, Vasculitides.
Results provided by:
Copyright © 2019 American College of Physicians. All Rights Reserved.
Print ISSN: 0003-4819 | Online ISSN: 1539-3704
Conditions of Use