ArticleRheumatology advances in practice2025
Treatment and risk of relapse in GCA in Western Norway 2013-2020: a retrospective cohort study.
Article in Rheumatology advances in practice, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objectives: During recent decades, there has been a growing recognition of the spectrum of GCA. This study aims to identify predictors of variation in the initial treatment of GCA and compare the relapse risk among patients with four different clinical phenotypes using a cohort of 256 well-defined GCA patients in Western Norway. Methods: Regression models were used to identify predictors of differences in initial oral glucocorticoid (GC) dosage and for the administration of intravenous GC (IVGC). Tapering of GCs was analysed using a linear mixed effects model. Time to GC discontinuation, end of rheumatological follow-up, and relapse were assessed with Kaplan-Meier methods and Cox regression. Results: Patients with cranial phenotype had lower risk of relapse, were more likely to discontinue GC treatment, and had shorter follow-up time at the rheumatological department compared with patients with other phenotypes. Neither the initial GC treatment nor GC tapering differed between the phenotypes. The only factor strongly associated with more intensive initial treatment was visual disturbances. Conclusions: Patients with the cranial GCA phenotype seem to have a shorter and less complicated disease course compared with patients with other phenotypes. This could suggest that early phenotype identification can yield important prognostic information.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.