ReviewCureus2026
Color Doppler Ultrasound Versus Magnetic Resonance Imaging for Diagnosing Giant Cell Arteritis: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
Review in Cureus, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Rapid diagnosis of giant cell arteritis (GCA) is essential to prevent ischemic complications. Color Doppler ultrasound (CDUS) and high-resolution magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) are increasingly used as alternatives or adjuncts to temporal artery biopsy, but their comparative diagnostic performance remains uncertain. We performed a systematic review and bivariate random-effects meta-analysis of diagnostic accuracy studies in adults with suspected GCA. Studies reporting extractable 2×2 data against temporal artery biopsy, or accepted clinical reference standards when biopsy was unavailable, were included. Risk of bias was assessed using Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies 2 (QUADAS-2). Pooled sensitivity, specificity, diagnostic odds ratios (DOR), and summary receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves were calculated, with evaluation of heterogeneity and publication bias. Thirty-nine studies, including 3,619 patients, met the inclusion criteria. Thirty-one studies assessed CDUS (2,766 patients) and 12 evaluated MRI (853 patients). For CDUS, the median sensitivity was 0.83 (range 0.17-1.00) and the median specificity was 0.88 (range 0.59-1.00), with a median DOR of 24.9 and substantial between-study variability. MRI demonstrated a median sensitivity of 0.88 (range 0.61-1.00), a median specificity of 0.92 (range 0.71-1.00), and a higher median DOR of 72.0, with more consistent estimates. Evidence of small-study or publication bias was observed for MRI (p≈0.0004) and was borderline for CDUS (p≈0.055). QUADAS-2 assessments were generally favorable, though common limitations included variable blinding, heterogeneous imaging protocols, and differences in corticosteroid timing. MRI demonstrates higher and more consistent diagnostic performance than CDUS. CDUS can achieve high accuracy in experienced centers but shows notable operator dependence. Both modalities support imaging-based diagnostic pathways for GCA, with the choice influenced by local expertise, resource availability, and corticosteroid exposure.
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.