↓ Skip to main content

Diagnostic delay for giant cell arteritis – a systematic review and meta-analysis

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Medicine, June 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 (92nd percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (68th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
blogs
1 blog
twitter
30 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
65 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
79 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Diagnostic delay for giant cell arteritis – a systematic review and meta-analysis
Published in
BMC Medicine, June 2017
DOI 10.1186/s12916-017-0871-z
Pubmed ID
Authors

James A. Prior, Hoda Ranjbar, John Belcher, Sarah L. Mackie, Toby Helliwell, Jennifer Liddle, Christian D. Mallen

Abstract

Giant cell arteritis (GCA), if untreated, can lead to blindness and stroke. The study's objectives were to (1) determine a new evidence-based benchmark of the extent of diagnostic delay for GCA and (2) examine the role of GCA-specific characteristics on diagnostic delay. Medical literature databases were searched from inception to November 2015. Articles were included if reporting a time-period of diagnostic delay between onset of GCA symptoms and diagnosis. Two reviewers assessed the quality of the final articles and extracted data from these. Random-effects meta-analysis was used to pool the mean time-period (95% confidence interval (CI)) between GCA symptom onset and diagnosis, and the delay observed for GCA-specific characteristics. Heterogeneity was assessed by I (2) and by 95% prediction interval (PI). Of 4128 articles initially identified, 16 provided data for meta-analysis. Mean diagnostic delay was 9.0 weeks (95% CI, 6.5 to 11.4) between symptom onset and GCA diagnosis (I (2) = 96.0%; P < 0.001; 95% PI, 0 to 19.2 weeks). Patients with a cranial presentation of GCA received a diagnosis after 7.7 (95% CI, 2.7 to 12.8) weeks (I (2) = 98.4%; P < 0.001; 95% PI, 0 to 27.6 weeks) and those with non-cranial GCA after 17.6 (95% CI, 9.7 to 25.5) weeks (I (2) = 96.6%; P < 0.001; 95% PI, 0 to 46.1 weeks). The mean delay from symptom onset to GCA diagnosis was 9 weeks, or longer when cranial symptoms were absent. Our research provides an evidence-based benchmark for diagnostic delay of GCA and supports the need for improved public awareness and fast-track diagnostic pathways.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 30 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 79 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 79 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 10 13%
Researcher 9 11%
Student > Master 9 11%
Student > Doctoral Student 6 8%
Student > Bachelor 6 8%
Other 19 24%
Unknown 20 25%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 45 57%
Social Sciences 3 4%
Mathematics 2 3%
Psychology 1 1%
Unspecified 1 1%
Other 2 3%
Unknown 25 32%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 30. 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 08 March 2021.
All research outputs
#1,293,914
of 25,074,338 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medicine
#903
of 3,922 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#25,605
of 321,075 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medicine
#17
of 50 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,074,338 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 94th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,922 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 45.6. This one has done well, scoring higher than 76% 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 321,075 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 92% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 50 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 68% of its contemporaries.