Rubenstein E, Maldini C, Gonzalez-Chiappe S, Chevret S, Mahr A. Sensitivity of temporal artery biopsy in the diagnosis of giant cell arteritis: a systematic literature review and meta-analysis.
Rheumatology (Oxford) 2020;
59:1011-1020. [PMID:
31529073 DOI:
10.1093/rheumatology/kez385]
[Citation(s) in RCA: 72] [Impact Index Per Article: 18.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/31/2019] [Revised: 07/30/2019] [Indexed: 12/21/2022] Open
Abstract
OBJECTIVES
Temporal artery biopsy (TAB) is a reference test for the diagnosis of GCA but reveals inflammatory changes only in a subset of patients. The lack of knowledge of TAB sensitivity hampers comparisons with non-invasive techniques such as temporal artery ultrasonography. We performed a systematic literature review and meta-analysis to estimate the sensitivity of TAB in GCA and to identify factors that may influence the estimate.
METHODS
A systematic literature review involved searching electronic databases and cross-references. Eligibility criteria included publications reporting at least 30 GCA cases fulfilling the original or modified 1990 ACR classification criteria. The pooled proportion of TAB-positive GCA cases was calculated by using aggregated-data meta-analysis with a random-effects model and assessment of heterogeneity with the I2 statistic. Subgroup analyses and meta-regression were used to examine the effect of patient and study characteristics on TAB positivity.
RESULTS
Among 3820 publications screened, 32 studies (3092 patients) published during 1993-2017 were analysed. The pooled proportion of TAB-positive GCA cases was 77.3% (95% CI: 71.8, 81.9%), with high between-study heterogeneity (I2 = 90%). The proportion of TAB-positive cases was slightly higher in publications before than in 2012 and after (P = 0.001).
CONCLUSION
The estimated sensitivity of 77% provides indirect evidence that TAB is not less sensitive than temporal artery imaging. The unexplained high between-study heterogeneity could result from differences in TAB sampling, processing or interpretation. The decrease in TAB-positive GCA cases over time could reflect an increasing propensity for clinicians to accept a GCA diagnosis without proof by TAB.
Collapse