↓ Skip to main content

Diagnosing an atypical site of giant cell arteritis with magnetic resonance angiography: a case report

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Medical Case Reports, June 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (78th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (98th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet

Citations

dimensions_citation
1 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
8 Mendeley
Title
Diagnosing an atypical site of giant cell arteritis with magnetic resonance angiography: a case report
Published in
Journal of Medical Case Reports, June 2016
DOI 10.1186/s13256-016-0971-y
Pubmed ID
Authors

Boon L. Tan, Jonathan J. Liu, Tuck Y. Yong, Chrismin C. Tan, Jordan Y. Li

Abstract

Giant cell arteritis typically involves the temporal arteries, but can involve other cranial arteries. Temporal artery biopsy is the mainstay for the diagnosis of giant cell arteritis; however, biopsy may be problematic if giant cell arteritis involves other cranial arteries that are inaccessible for sampling. In these situations, magnetic resonance angiography is a useful, non-invasive adjunctive method in the diagnosis of giant cell arteritis. In this case report, we describe a case of giant cell arteritis involving only the occipital artery which was revealed by magnetic resonance angiography. A 67-year-old Caucasian man was admitted to our hospital with a 4-week history of malaise, fever, and mild occipital headaches. There were no other positive findings on physical examination. Laboratory studies were remarkable for normocytic anemia, raised inflammatory markers, and mildly deranged liver function tests. To exclude intracranial pathology, he underwent a cranial magnetic resonance imaging with gadolinium, which demonstrated a thickened wall and mural enhancement of his right occipital artery, consistent with giant cell arteritis. His temporal arteries were normal. His occipital arteries were not accessible for biopsy and he was commenced on high-dose prednisolone (60 mg daily). His symptoms resolved completely after a week of glucocorticoid steroid treatment and he was well on 5 mg of prednisolone once a day on follow-up. While magnetic resonance angiography may not replace the need for biopsy, it may have a diagnostic role in suspected giant cell arteritis, such as when the involved arteries are inaccessible for biopsy.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 8 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 8 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Other 2 25%
Professor 1 13%
Student > Master 1 13%
Student > Bachelor 1 13%
Researcher 1 13%
Other 2 25%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 5 63%
Unspecified 2 25%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 13%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 7. 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 29 July 2016.
All research outputs
#1,167,687
of 8,154,593 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Medical Case Reports
#108
of 1,505 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#52,725
of 257,437 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Medical Case Reports
#1
of 67 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 8,154,593 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 84th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,505 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.3. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 91% 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 257,437 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 78% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 67 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 98% of its contemporaries.