The Journal of rheumatology · 2010
Limited value of temporal artery ultrasonography examinations for diagnosis of giant cell arteritis: analysis of 77 subjects.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Maldini Carla, Dépinay-Dhellemmes Caroline, Tra Thi T S, Chauveau Michel, Allanore Yannick, Gossec Laure, Terrasse Geneviève, Guillevin Loïc, Coste Joël, Mahr Alfred
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: Use of TA-US for diagnostic investigation of giant cell arteritis (GCA) has been proposed but remains a matter of debate because of the heterogeneous findings. We retrospectively evaluated operating characteristics of temporal artery ultrasonography (TA-US) in a single teaching hospital.
METHODS: All subjects with suspected GCA had been seen between 2002 and 2008 and had undergone TA-US with continuous-wave Doppler (until 2004) or color duplex ultrasonography (after 2004), followed within 30 days by a temporal artery biopsy (TAB). TA-US findings were compared with TAB-proven GCA and clinically diagnosed GCA. Results are expressed as sensitivities, specificities, and positive (LR+) and negative likelihood ratios (LR-) of stenoses, occlusions, and the halo sign; for the latter, only color duplex TA-US was considered.
RESULTS: Seventy-seven patients fulfilled the selection criteria; 13 had TAB-proven and 19 had clinically defined GCA. Stenoses/occlusions were seen on 45.5% of TA-US and the halo sign was seen only once (3.2%) in 31 duplex TA-US. Respective sensitivities, specificities, LR+, and LR- for GCA diagnosis (using TAB-proven/clinically defined GCA as reference standards) were 69%/53%, 59%/57%, 1.7/1.2, and 0.5/0.8 for stenoses and/or occlusions, and 17%/10%, 100%/100%, infinite/infinite, and 0.8/0.9 for the halo sign.
CONCLUSION: The halo sign showed 100% specificity for GCA but only 10%-17% sensitivity. Stenoses/occlusions were of low diagnostic value. These observations suggest that TA-US is neither an effective substitute for TAB nor a reliable screening test to decide which patients can be safely spared TAB.
METHODS: All subjects with suspected GCA had been seen between 2002 and 2008 and had undergone TA-US with continuous-wave Doppler (until 2004) or color duplex ultrasonography (after 2004), followed within 30 days by a temporal artery biopsy (TAB). TA-US findings were compared with TAB-proven GCA and clinically diagnosed GCA. Results are expressed as sensitivities, specificities, and positive (LR+) and negative likelihood ratios (LR-) of stenoses, occlusions, and the halo sign; for the latter, only color duplex TA-US was considered.
RESULTS: Seventy-seven patients fulfilled the selection criteria; 13 had TAB-proven and 19 had clinically defined GCA. Stenoses/occlusions were seen on 45.5% of TA-US and the halo sign was seen only once (3.2%) in 31 duplex TA-US. Respective sensitivities, specificities, LR+, and LR- for GCA diagnosis (using TAB-proven/clinically defined GCA as reference standards) were 69%/53%, 59%/57%, 1.7/1.2, and 0.5/0.8 for stenoses and/or occlusions, and 17%/10%, 100%/100%, infinite/infinite, and 0.8/0.9 for the halo sign.
CONCLUSION: The halo sign showed 100% specificity for GCA but only 10%-17% sensitivity. Stenoses/occlusions were of low diagnostic value. These observations suggest that TA-US is neither an effective substitute for TAB nor a reliable screening test to decide which patients can be safely spared TAB.