↓ Skip to main content

Dove Medical Press

Multivariate prediction model for suspected giant cell arteritis: development and validation

Overview of attention for article published in Clinical Ophthalmology, November 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (84th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (89th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
3 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
36 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
48 Mendeley
Title
Multivariate prediction model for suspected giant cell arteritis: development and validation
Published in
Clinical Ophthalmology, November 2017
DOI 10.2147/opth.s151385
Pubmed ID
Authors

Edsel B Ing, Gabriela Lahaie Luna, Andrew Toren, Royce Ing, John J Chen, Nitika Arora, Nurhan Torun, Otana A Jakpor, J Alexander Fraser, Felix J Tyndel, Arun NE Sundaram, Xinyang Liu, Cindy TY Lam, Vivek Patel, Ezekiel Weis, David Jordan, Steven Gilberg, Christian Pagnoux, Martin ten Hove

Abstract

To develop and validate a diagnostic prediction model for patients with suspected giant cell arteritis (GCA). A retrospective review of records of consecutive adult patients undergoing temporal artery biopsy (TABx) for suspected GCA was conducted at seven university centers. The pathologic diagnosis was considered the final diagnosis. The predictor variables were age, gender, new onset headache, clinical temporal artery abnormality, jaw claudication, ischemic vision loss (VL), diplopia, erythrocyte sedimentation rate (ESR), C-reactive protein (CRP), and platelet level. Multiple imputation was performed for missing data. Logistic regression was used to compare our models with the non-histologic American College of Rheumatology (ACR) GCA classification criteria. Internal validation was performed with 10-fold cross validation and bootstrap techniques. External validation was performed by geographic site. There were 530 complete TABx records: 397 were negative and 133 positive for GCA. Age, jaw claudication, VL, platelets, and log CRP were statistically significant predictors of positive TABx, whereas ESR, gender, headache, and temporal artery abnormality were not. The parsimonious model had a cross-validated bootstrap area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC) of 0.810 (95% CI =0.766-0.854), geographic external validation AUROC's in the range of 0.75-0.85, calibration pH-L of 0.812, sensitivity of 43.6%, and specificity of 95.2%, which outperformed the ACR criteria. Our prediction rule with calculator and nomogram aids in the triage of patients with suspected GCA and may decrease the need for TABx in select low-score at-risk subjects. However, misclassification remains a concern.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 48 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 48 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Postgraduate 6 13%
Student > Bachelor 6 13%
Student > Doctoral Student 5 10%
Researcher 4 8%
Professor > Associate Professor 4 8%
Other 12 25%
Unknown 11 23%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 22 46%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 4 8%
Social Sciences 3 6%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 4%
Business, Management and Accounting 1 2%
Other 4 8%
Unknown 12 25%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 13. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 03 September 2020.
All research outputs
#2,707,113
of 25,382,440 outputs
Outputs from Clinical Ophthalmology
#184
of 3,714 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#51,218
of 340,752 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Clinical Ophthalmology
#3
of 28 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,382,440 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 89th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,714 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.9. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 95% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 340,752 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 84% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 28 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 89% of its contemporaries.