Table 2

Results of the meta-analysis (pooled estimates) for ultrasound and MRI signs of vasculitis in comparison with clinical diagnosis or temporal artery biopsy as reference standard for giant cell arteritis (GCA)

Index testReference standardNumber of patients
(number of studies)
LR+
(95% CI)
LR–
(95% CI)
Sensitivity
(95% CI)
Specificity
(95% CI)
Ultrasound
 ‘Halo’ sign*Clinical diagnosis605 (eight studies)17 19 20 23 25 28 30 31 19 (4.8 to 75.5)0.2 (0.1 to 0.4)77 (62 to 87)96 (85 to 99)
 ‘Halo’ sign±stenosis±occlusion†Clinical diagnosis560 (three studies)6 17 22 6.9 (3 to 16.1)0.3 (0.1 to 0.6)78 (57 to 90)89 (78 to 95)
 ‘Compression’ sign‡Clinical diagnosis140 (two studies)30 32
 ‘Halo’ sign*TAB289 (seven studies)17–21 23 27 4.3 (2.4 to 7.8)0.4 (0.2 to 0.6)70 (56 to 81)84 (73 to 91)
 ‘Halo’ sign±stenosis†TAB50 (two studies)18 27 8.4 (2.4 to 30.1)0.3 (0 to 1.6)77 (23 to 97)91 (75 to 97)
 ‘Halo’ sign±stenosis±occlusion*TAB611 (five studies)6 17 22–24 8.3 (2.5 to 27.4)0.2 (0.1 to 0.7)78 (48 to 93)91 (70 to 98)
MRI
 MRI*Clinical diagnosis509 (six studies)33–35 38–40 5.9 (3.4 to 10.3)0.3 (0.2 to 0.5)73 (57 to 85)88 (81 to 92)
 MRI*TAB443 (six studies)33–35 37 38 40 5 (3.2 to 7.8)0.1 (0.1 to 0.1)93 (89 to 96)81 (73 to 87)
  • *Bivariate random-effects binomial generalised mixed model.

  • †Univariate random-effects models.

  • ‡Model fails to converge with both analytical methods.

  • ‘halo’ sign ±stenosis, combination of ‘halo’ sign±stenosis as ultrasound signs suggestive for vasculitis; ‘halo’ sign±stenosis±occlusion, combination of halo±stenosis±occlusion as ultrasound signs suggestive for vasculitis; MRI, magnetic resonance imaging; wall thickening+contrast enhancement as MRI signs suggestive for vasculitis.

  • ACR, American College of Rheumatology; CI, confidence interval; clinical diagnosis, final diagnosis made according to the ACR criteria or physician diagnosis; LR, likelihood ratio; TAB, temporal artery biopsy.