Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:
https://hdl.handle.net/2440/85717
Citations | ||
Scopus | Web of Science® | Altmetric |
---|---|---|
?
|
?
|
Full metadata record
DC Field | Value | Language |
---|---|---|
dc.contributor.author | Black, R. | - |
dc.contributor.author | Roach, D. | - |
dc.contributor.author | Rischmueller, M. | - |
dc.contributor.author | Lester, S. | - |
dc.contributor.author | Hill, C. | - |
dc.date.issued | 2013 | - |
dc.identifier.citation | International Journal of Rheumatic Diseases, 2013; 16(3):352-357 | - |
dc.identifier.issn | 1756-1841 | - |
dc.identifier.issn | 1756-185X | - |
dc.identifier.uri | http://hdl.handle.net/2440/85717 | - |
dc.description | Article first published online: 8 JUN 2013 | - |
dc.description.abstract | Aim: The exact diagnostic role of temporal artery ultrasound (TAU) remains unclear. The aim of this study was to determine the sensitivity and specificity of a positive halo sign in patients undergoing TAU in a clinical setting, and to perform a review of existing evidence. Method: Patients who had undergone TAU at a single centre in Australia were included in the study. The presence or absence of a halo sign and whether it was unilateral or bilateral was determined retrospectively from radiology reports. Pathology results were used to determine which patients underwent a temporal artery biopsy and if the biopsy was positive or negative. A case note review was performed to determine presenting clinical features and if a clinical diagnosis of giant cell arteritis was made. The sensitivity, specificity and likelihood ratios of TAU compared to both biopsy and clinical diagnosis were calculated. Results: Fifty patients were identified as having had a TAU (28% male, mean age 69). When compared to biopsy-proven cases, the sensitivity of a halo sign was 40%, specificity 81%, positive likelihood ratio 2.1 and negative likelihood ratio 0.7. When compared to clinical diagnosis, the sensitivity was 42%, specificity 94%, positive likelihood ratio 7.1 and negative likelihood 0.6. Conclusions: Sensitivity and specificity results were comparable to the literature. A halo sign may preclude the need for biopsy in cases of high clinical suspicion and contraindications to surgery. Biopsy remains necessary in most cases, irrespective of whether a halo sign is present. | - |
dc.description.statementofresponsibility | Rachel Black, Denise Roach, Maureen Rischmueller, Susan L. Lester and Catherine L. Hill | - |
dc.language.iso | en | - |
dc.publisher | Wiley-Blackwell Publishing Asia | - |
dc.rights | © 2013 Asia Pacific League of Associations for Rheumatology and Wiley Publishing Asia Pty Ltd | - |
dc.source.uri | http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/1756-185x.12108 | - |
dc.subject | Clinical practice; diagnosis; giant cell arteritis; temporal artery ultrasound | - |
dc.title | The use of temporal artery ultrasound in the diagnosis of giant cell arteritis in routine practice | - |
dc.type | Journal article | - |
dc.identifier.doi | 10.1111/1756-185X.12108 | - |
pubs.publication-status | Published | - |
dc.identifier.orcid | Black, R. [0000-0001-6600-7430] | - |
dc.identifier.orcid | Roach, D. [0000-0002-7242-4561] | - |
dc.identifier.orcid | Rischmueller, M. [0000-0001-5057-3286] | - |
dc.identifier.orcid | Hill, C. [0000-0001-8289-4922] | - |
Appears in Collections: | Aurora harvest 2 Surgery publications |
Files in This Item:
There are no files associated with this item.
Items in DSpace are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.