Skip to main content
NCBI home page
Cureus logoLink to Cureus
. 2026 Jan 8;18(1):e101096. doi: 10.7759/cureus.101096

Color Doppler Ultrasound Versus Magnetic Resonance Imaging for Diagnosing Giant Cell Arteritis: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Mustapha El Yaman 1, Fatima Khan 2, Bareq S Al-Lami 3, Abdulrahman O Saeed 4, Baqir S Al-Lami 5,✉, Yasir Al-Lami 4, Leen El Yaman 6
Editors: Alexander Muacevic, John R Adler
PMCID: PMC12883237  PMID: 41664719

Abstract

Rapid diagnosis of giant cell arteritis (GCA) is essential to prevent ischemic complications. Color Doppler ultrasound (CDUS) and high-resolution magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) are increasingly used as alternatives or adjuncts to temporal artery biopsy, but their comparative diagnostic performance remains uncertain.

We performed a systematic review and bivariate random-effects meta-analysis of diagnostic accuracy studies in adults with suspected GCA. Studies reporting extractable 2×2 data against temporal artery biopsy, or accepted clinical reference standards when biopsy was unavailable, were included. Risk of bias was assessed using Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies 2 (QUADAS-2). Pooled sensitivity, specificity, diagnostic odds ratios (DOR), and summary receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves were calculated, with evaluation of heterogeneity and publication bias.

Thirty-nine studies, including 3,619 patients, met the inclusion criteria. Thirty-one studies assessed CDUS (2,766 patients) and 12 evaluated MRI (853 patients). For CDUS, the median sensitivity was 0.83 (range 0.17-1.00) and the median specificity was 0.88 (range 0.59-1.00), with a median DOR of 24.9 and substantial between-study variability. MRI demonstrated a median sensitivity of 0.88 (range 0.61-1.00), a median specificity of 0.92 (range 0.71-1.00), and a higher median DOR of 72.0, with more consistent estimates. Evidence of small-study or publication bias was observed for MRI (p≈0.0004) and was borderline for CDUS (p≈0.055). QUADAS-2 assessments were generally favorable, though common limitations included variable blinding, heterogeneous imaging protocols, and differences in corticosteroid timing.

MRI demonstrates higher and more consistent diagnostic performance than CDUS. CDUS can achieve high accuracy in experienced centers but shows notable operator dependence. Both modalities support imaging-based diagnostic pathways for GCA, with the choice influenced by local expertise, resource availability, and corticosteroid exposure.

Keywords: color doppler ultrasound, diagnostic accuracy, giant cell arteritis, magnetic resonance imaging, mri, ultrasound, vessel-wall imaging

Introduction and background

Giant cell arteritis (GCA) is a vasculitis of medium- and large-sized arteries that mostly affects older adults and carries an immediate risk of irreversible visual loss and other ischemic complications. In practice, the risk of irreversible visual loss often leads to immediate initiation of high-dose corticosteroids prior to imaging or temporal artery biopsy (TAB), and corticosteroid exposure before testing can reduce the sensitivity of subsequent diagnostic investigations [1,2]. TAB remains a widely used reference standard and is highly specific when positive, but it is invasive and imperfect: segmental inflammation produces skip lesions and biopsies, and therefore, can be falsely negative even when disease is present, a limitation that has important consequences for both diagnosis and management [3,4].

Because of these shortcomings, noninvasive vascular imaging has become central to modern diagnostic pathways. Color Doppler ultrasound (CDUS) can demonstrate the hypoechoic circumferential “halo sign,” a marker of mural edema and probable active arteritis, and early work suggested the halo sign had good specificity in the appropriate clinical context [5,6]. High-resolution, contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance vessel-wall imaging also identifies concentric wall thickening and post-contrast mural enhancement that correlate with histologic inflammation of the temporal artery, and single-center and multicenter series have reported promising sensitivity and specificity for dedicated protocols [7]. Practice guidelines have moved to reflect these data: international task forces now recommend early imaging; ultrasound or MRI, as part of the diagnostic workup for suspected cranial GCA where local expertise and equipment permit, although uptake and recommended sequencing vary by region and resource availability [8]. Reported accuracy for both CDUS and high-resolution MRI varies substantially between studies, driven by differences in operator experience, scanner and probe parameters, study populations, steroid timing, and choice of reference standard.

The clinical question therefore remains unsettled: is one imaging test consistently accurate enough to be preferred as the primary noninvasive diagnostic alternative to biopsy, or do trade-offs in availability, reproducibility, and diagnostic performance mean both tests retain complementary roles? This review addresses that question by pooling and directly comparing diagnostic accuracy estimates for CDUS versus high-resolution MRI, while paying close attention to bias risks that commonly inflate test performance in single studies.

Review

Methodology

We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of diagnostic accuracy studies of imaging for suspected GCA. Eligible studies enrolled adults with clinical features suggestive of GCA (for example, new temporal headache, jaw claudication, or acute visual symptoms). Studies were excluded if patients received high-dose corticosteroids for more than two weeks before imaging. Index tests evaluated were: (A) CDUS and (B) MRI of arteries relevant to GCA. For each study, we recorded the specific CDUS criteria used (for example, presence of a halo sign, intima-media thickness thresholds, unilateral versus bilateral criteria), probe frequency, arterial territories examined (temporal only versus temporal + axillary/extra-cranial), and for MRI the pulse sequences, use of dedicated head coils, field strength, contrast protocol, and the vessel-wall criteria applied.

Reference Standard and Verification

The primary reference standard was the temporal artery biopsy (histological demonstration of vasculitis). When a biopsy was not performed or reported, a study-level clinical diagnosis based on accepted criteria and clinical adjudication (commonly using American College of Rheumatology/European League Against Rheumatism (ACR/EULAR) clinical classification and local diagnostic pathways) [9] was accepted as a secondary reference standard. To address the potential for differential verification bias introduced by mixed reference standards, we prespecified subgroup and sensitivity analyses separating studies using biopsy alone from those using a clinical diagnosis (or composite reference) and performed analyses restricted to biopsy-confirmed cohorts where data permitted.

Data Sources and Search Strategy

We searched PubMed, Embase, Cochrane CENTRAL, and Google Scholar from inception to the date of the search. Search terms combined GCA vocabulary (e.g., “giant cell arteritis”, “temporal arteritis”) with imaging terms (“ultrasound”, “Doppler”, “halo”, “MRI”, “vessel wall enhancement”) and diagnostic keywords (“sensitivity”, “specificity”, “biopsy”). We supplemented database searches by screening reference lists of included studies and relevant reviews.

Study Selection and Data Extraction

Two reviewers independently screened titles/abstracts and full texts and extracted study data using a standardized form. For each imaging modality and study, we extracted or reconstructed 2×2 contingency tables (true positives, false negatives, true negatives, false positives) against the prespecified reference standard. When studies reported raw counts these were used directly. When only sensitivity, specificity and subgroup totals were provided, we back-calculated integer 2×2 counts by applying reported rates to reported denominators and rounding to the nearest integer; the specific rounding rule used was to round fractions ≥0.5 up and <0.5 down. We also extracted study design and conduct features relevant to heterogeneity and bias: study design (prospective/retrospective), sampling (consecutive/enriched sampling), patient demographics, clinical setting (fast-track/secondary/tertiary care), blinding of index test readers to reference standard results, timing between imaging and biopsy, and details of operator experience (sonographer training, radiologist expertise) and equipment where reported.

Risk of Bias Assessment

Each study was assessed with Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies 2 tool (QUADAS-2) [10]. Domain-level judgements (patient selection, index test, reference standard, flow and timing) were completed independently by two reviewers, and disagreements were resolved by consensus. We reported QUADAS-2 domain ratings and used these to inform sensitivity analyses (for example, excluding studies at high risk in key domains).

Statistical Analysis and Investigation of Heterogeneity

We pooled sensitivity and specificity for each modality using a bivariate random-effects meta-analytic model [11]. We calculated pooled diagnostic odds ratios (DOR) and plotted summary receiver operating characteristic (SROC) curves. Heterogeneity was quantified using I² for sensitivity, specificity and DOR estimates, and visually inspected via forest and SROC plots.

Given the recognized influence of corticosteroids on the imaging yield, we extracted timing between steroid initiation and imaging (and between imaging and biopsy) whenever reported. Where possible we categorized imaging timing relative to steroid start (imaging before steroid initiation; imaging within zero to three days after initiation; imaging greater than three days after initiation) and included timing as a covariate in meta-regression or performed subgroup analyses. Where timing data were incompletely reported, we documented this and addressed it in sensitivity analyses or in explicit limitations.

Publication bias and small-study effects were assessed using funnel plots and Egger's regression tests as appropriate for diagnostic accuracy meta-analysis. All statistical analyses were performed using R programming meta-analysis software (packages for diagnostic meta-analysis and meta-regression) (Version 4.5.2, Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria, https://www.R-project.org/) and followed Preferred Reporting Items for a Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Diagnostic Test Accuracy Studies (PRISMA-DTA) [12] reporting guidance. Results for the number of reconstructed tables, subgroup analyses, and sensitivity analyses are reported in the results section.

Results

Our systematic search and review process yielded a final set of 39 diagnostic accuracy studies [13-51], as shown in the PRISMA flow chart (Figure 1), meeting the inclusion criteria.

Figure 1. PRISMA flowchart.

Figure 1

Open in a new tab

PRISMA: Preferred Reporting Items for a Systematic Review and Meta-analyses.

Of these, 31 studies evaluated CDUS and 12 evaluated MRI. The combined analysis includes data from a total of 3,619 patients with suspected GCA. The populations were predominantly drawn from specialized vascular or rheumatology clinics, reflecting a high pre-test probability of disease in most cohorts. Study characteristics are shown in Table 1.

Table 1. Characteristics of the included studies.

US: Ultrasound; TAB: temporal artery biopsy; GCA: giant cell arteritis.

First Author Year Design Sample size
Luqmani et al. [13] 2016 Prospective, multicenter diagnostic cohort study 381
Hansen et al. [14] 2022 Prospective diagnostic accuracy cohort study 106 Analyzed (US + TAB available): 78
Aranda-Valera et al. [15] 2017 Prospective diagnostic accuracy cohort 451 suspected GCA TAB performed: 166 Final GCA diagnosis (clinical): 256
Molina-Collada et al. [16] 2022 Retrospective diagnostic accuracy cohort 198
Lecler et al. [17] 2022 Prospective single-center diagnostic accuracy cohort 45
Rodriguez-Régent et al. [44] 2020 Prospective diagnostic accuracy cohort 32
Bley et al. [18] 2008 Retrospective diagnostic-accuracy cohort 59
van Nieuwland et al. [19] 2025 Nested case–control diagnostic-accuracy study 42
Suelves et al. [20] 2010 Prospective pilot diagnostic-accuracy study 10
He et al. [21] 2022 Single-center retrospective diagnostic accuracy cohort study 63
Ghinoi et al. [22] 2008 Prospective diagnostic accuracy cohort study 20
Bley et al. [45] 2005 Prospective diagnostic accuracy cohort study 20
Croft et al. [23] 2015 Retrospective diagnostic cohort study 24
El-Jade et al. [24] 2024 Retrospective diagnostic accuracy cohort 38
Czihal et al. [25] 2020 Prospective diagnostic accuracy cohort 114
Black et al. [26] 2013 Retrospective diagnostic accuracy cohort 50 (TAB subset: 21)
Schmidt et al. [27] 1997 Prospective diagnostic accuracy cohort 30
Conway et al. [28] 2019 Prospective diagnostic accuracy cohort 162
LeSar et al. [29] 2002 Prospective diagnostic accuracy cohort 32
Kaandorp et al. [30] 2024 Prospective diagnostic accuracy cohort 242
Sundholm et al. [31] 2019 Prospective diagnostic accuracy cohort 75
Roncato et al. [32] 2017 Retrospective diagnostic accuracy cohort 42
Pérez-López et al. [33] 2009 Prospective diagnostic accuracy cohort 54
Maldini et al. [34] 2010   Retrospective diagnostic accuracy cohort 77
Romera-Villegas et al. [35] 2004 Prospective diagnostic accuracy cohort 68
Bilyk et al. [36] 2017 Prospective diagnostic accuracy cohort, masked 71
Nesher et al. [37] 2002 Prospective diagnostic accuracy cohort 69
Habib et al. [38] 2011 Prospective diagnostic accuracy cohort 32
Pfadenhauer et al. [39] 2003 Prospective diagnostic accuracy cohort 67
Murgatroyd et al. [40] 2003 Prospective diagnostic accuracy pilot study 26
Reinhard et al. [41] 2003 Prospective diagnostic accuracy cohort 83
Skoog et al. [42] 2024 Retrospective diagnostic accuracy cohort study 107
Aschwanden et al. [43] 2010 Prospective observational diagnostic study 72
Sommer et al. [46] 2018 Prospective monocentric cohort 27
Mohammad-Brahim et al. [47] 2018 Prospective single-center study 27
Rheuaume et al. [48] 2016 Prospective cohort study 171
Mournet et al. [49] 2021 Retrospective single-center 64
Junek et al. [50] 2021 Retrospective cohort 268
Klink et al. [51] 2014 Prospective multicenter cohort 185
Open in a new tab

Across the 39 included studies, most evaluated a single imaging modality, with only a small subset assessing both CDUS and MRI within the same patient cohort. As a result, pooled diagnostic accuracy estimates for CDUS and MRI were derived predominantly from separate study populations. Comparisons between modalities in this meta-analysis therefore represent indirect, study-level comparisons based on pooled sensitivity, specificity, and diagnostic odds ratios, rather than paired within-patient analyses.

Thirty-one ultrasound studies comprising 2,766 patients were included in the quantitative synthesis. Reported sensitivity values varied widely across studies, with a median sensitivity of 0.83 (95% CI, I²=51.7%) and a range from 0.17 to 1.00. Specificity estimates were more consistent but remained heterogeneous, with a median specificity of 0.88 (95% CI, I²=47.4%) and a range from 0.59 to 1.00. Forest plots for pooled sensitivity and specificity are shown in Figures 2, 3.

Figure 2. Ultrasound sensitivity forest plot.

Figure 2

Open in a new tab

[13-43]

Figure 3. Ultrasound specificity forest plot.

Figure 3

Open in a new tab

[13-43]

Moderate heterogeneity was observed across both diagnostic parameters for the ultrasound modality. 

Twelve MRI studies including 853 patients were analyzed. Sensitivity estimates were generally high, with a median sensitivity of 0.88 (95% CI, I²=53.1%) and a range from 0.61 to 1.00. Specificity estimates showed a median of 0.92 (95% CI, I²=59.2%), ranging from 0.71 to 1.00. Forest plots for MRI sensitivity and specificity are presented in Figures 4, 5. 

Figure 4. MRI sensitivity forest plot.

Figure 4

Open in a new tab

[17-19], [22], [44-51].

Figure 5. MRI specificity forest plot.

Figure 5

Open in a new tab

[17-19], [22], [44-51].

Diagnostic odds ratios (DORs) for ultrasound demonstrated marked dispersion. The median DOR was 24.9 (95% CI), with individual study estimates ranging from 1.6 to 1,877 (Figure 6), indicating substantial between-study variability.

Figure 6. Ultrasound diagnostic odds ratios (DOR) forest plot.

Figure 6

Open in a new tab

[13-43]

MRI DORs were higher overall than those observed for ultrasound, with a median DOR of 72.0 (95% CI) and a range from 10.4 to 735 (Figure 7).

Figure 7. MRI diagnostic odds ratios (DOR) forest plot.

Figure 7

Open in a new tab

[17-19], [22], [44-51].

Compared with ultrasound, MRI DOR estimates showed less dispersion across studies.

The ultrasound SROC curve showed a median operating point of 83% sensitivity and 88% specificity, with wide scatter of individual study estimates (Figure 8). 

Figure 8. Ultrasound summary receiver operating characteristic (SROC).

Figure 8

Open in a new tab

[13-43]

The MRI SROC curve demonstrated a median operating point of 88% sensitivity and 96% specificity, with tighter clustering of contributing study estimates relative to ultrasound (Figure 9).

Figure 9. MRI summary receiver operating characteristic (SROC).

Figure 9

Open in a new tab

[17-19], [22], [44-51].

Publication bias was assessed using Egger’s regression test. For ultrasound studies, the test indicated borderline asymmetry (p=0.0554; bias estimate 1.5460). MRI studies demonstrated significant asymmetry (p=0.0004; bias estimate 1.5974). Funnel plots illustrating these findings are shown in Figures 10, 11.

Figure 10. Ultrasound funnel plot.

Figure 10

Open in a new tab

[13-43]

Figure 11. MRI funnel plot.

Figure 11

Open in a new tab

[17-19], [22], [44-51].

Methodological quality was evaluated using the QUADAS-2 tool, with domain-level results presented in Figures 12, 13.

Figure 12. Ultrasound cohort QUADAS-2 results.

Figure 12

Open in a new tab

QUADAS 2: Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies 2 tool. [13-43]

Figure 13. MRI cohort QUADAS-2 results.

Figure 13

Open in a new tab

QUADAS-2: Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies 2 tool. [17-19], [22], [44-51].

For ultrasound studies, most domains were rated as low risk of bias, though uncertainties were noted in patient selection and index test blinding in several retrospective or older studies. MRI studies showed fewer concerns in applicability domains, though the smaller number of studies limits the robustness of these assessments. Overall, QUADAS-2 findings indicate variable risk-of-bias profiles across studies rather than uniformly low risk.

In the subgroup restricted to studies using temporal artery biopsy (TAB) as the reference standard, both ultrasound and MRI demonstrated consistently high diagnostic performance, with narrower confidence intervals compared with the overall analysis. For ultrasound (Figure 14), the TAB-based subgroup analysis yielded a pooled sensitivity of 0.7 (95% CI 0.72-0.83) using a random-effects model and 0.78 (95% CI 0.74-0.82) under common effects.

Figure 14. Pooled sensitivity and specificity of ultrasound in studies using temporal artery biopsy as the reference standard.

Figure 14

Open in a new tab

[13,18,20,22-24,26-34,40,41]

Pooled specificity was 0.83 (95% CI 0.77-0.90) with random effects and 0.88 (95% CI 0.86-0.90) with common effects. While several ultrasound studies reported perfect or near-perfect specificity, sensitivity estimates were more variable across studies, with some reporting values below 0.60.

For MRI (Figure 15), pooled sensitivity was 0.85 (95% CI 0.77-0.94) using a random-effects model and 0.87 (95% CI 0.82-0.91) under a common-effects model.

Figure 15. Pooled sensitivity and specificity of MRI in studies using temporal artery biopsy as the reference standard.

Figure 15

Open in a new tab

[18,22,44,45,48,50,51]

Pooled specificity for MRI was similarly high, reaching 0.88 (95% CI 0.80-0.97) with random effects and 0.91 (95% CI 0.88-0.94) with common effects. Individual study estimates showed moderate variability, particularly for sensitivity, although most point estimates clustered above 0.75.

Discussion

This meta-analysis indicates that high-resolution MRI of the cranial arteries is reported with greater consistency and less between-study variability than CDUS for diagnosing GCA. Reported CDUS accuracy is heterogeneous: a unilateral halo sign has been associated with pooled sensitivity of about 68% and specificity of 91%, while bilateral halo signs produced lower pooled sensitivity (43%) but very high specificity (100%), accompanied by substantial heterogeneity across studies [52]. In our pooled DOR analysis, CDUS values ranged widely (1.6-1,877), whereas MRI DORs were more tightly clustered around a higher median (72.0), a pattern that suggests more uniform discrimination by MRI in the published literature.

This apparent consistency for MRI should be interpreted with caution. MRI studies are fewer in number and are often performed in specialized academic centers using dedicated head coils and standardized vessel-wall sequences. Such settings can magnify measured performance through selection of patients, protocol standardization, and possibly publication bias. Thus, some of the observed difference may reflect study context and methodology rather than intrinsic superiority of the modality. Conversely, CDUS performance is highly sensitive to operator experience, choice of probe and Doppler settings, and the completeness of the arterial survey (temporal and axillary arteries in particular). Multicenter evidence shows that ultrasound accuracy improves in expert hands and with standardized protocols, but falls in less-experienced environments [53-60]. Importantly, CDUS can achieve high accuracy when performed by trained sonographers who follow guideline-recommended techniques. MRI interpretation is not free from similar concerns. Accurate MRI assessment requires radiologists experienced in vessel-wall imaging and appropriate pulse sequences; results can be affected by scanner field strength, sequence selection, spatial resolution, and timing of contrast administration. These MRI-specific sources of variability are less well reported in the literature but are relevant for implementation outside specialized centers. Taken together, both modalities have factors that influence real-world performance: CDUS is more operator-dependent, while MRI performance depends on scanner and protocol characteristics and reader expertise.

In our pooled data, forest plots of DOR illustrated this contrast. Ultrasound DORs ranged from 1.6 to 1,877, reflecting extreme heterogeneity (Figure 6), whereas MRI DORs clustered around a higher median value (72.0). This suggests that, within published studies, MRI offers more stable discrimination between GCA-positive and GCA-negative patients across centers. However, ultrasound accuracy can be high in expert hands and may decline in settings with less experience. This interpretation aligns with multicenter evidence showing that vascular ultrasound performance in suspected GCA varies according to operator expertise, protocols, and arterial territories examined, with more consistent results reported in specialized centers [53]. In TAB-confirmed studies, both ultrasound and MRI showed high diagnostic performance with reduced heterogeneity, providing more precise estimates than the overall analysis. MRI demonstrated slightly higher pooled sensitivity and specificity, though overlapping confidence intervals indicate these differences are modest and study-level rather than within-patient. MRI sensitivity was more variable, likely reflecting differences in imaging sequences, scanner resolution, timing relative to treatment, and interpretation criteria. 

These findings have practical implications. The wide variability in CDUS performance likely reflects its operator dependence and sensitivity to technical factors. Diagnostic accuracy depends on sonographer experience, equipment, and scanning protocol [53-59]. Use of high-frequency linear probes, optimization of Doppler settings, and a standardized approach to examining temporal and axillary arteries reduce false-negative and false-positive findings [54]. Even with good technique, reported CDUS sensitivity varies widely: one meta-analysis found that requiring halo signs in more than one artery increased sensitivity toward 100%, while many single-center series reported substantially lower values [53]. MRI, by contrast, relies on standardized pulse sequences and dedicated head coils to depict mural inflammation, which may contribute to more uniform results in controlled settings. For example, one study reported similar sensitivity for MRI and CDUS in detecting temporal artery inflammation (60% vs 76%), but MRI achieved 100% specificity [58]. Clinically, this means that a negative ultrasound; particularly outside expert centers, may not exclude GCA, while a positive MRI strongly supports the diagnosis, acknowledging that MRI performance may vary with local expertise and protocols. Current EULAR and ACR guidance favors early ultrasound; including assessment of axillary arteries, within fast-track pathways because of its accessibility and speed. Our pooled results support ultrasound as a pragmatic first-line test in many settings but emphasize that a negative or equivocal ultrasound, particularly when obtained outside experienced units, does not exclude GCA. In those circumstances, MRI can provide complementary information and may have a high positive predictive value when obtained using appropriate vessel-wall protocols. 

Timing and pre-test treatment substantially affect imaging yield. In routine practice, patients with suspected GCA are often started on high-dose corticosteroids immediately to reduce the risk of vision loss. Both ultrasound halo signs and MRI vessel-wall enhancement can diminish within days of treatment [57,58]. One review noted that ultrasound and MRI findings may normalize rapidly and should therefore be obtained as early as possible, preferably before or within the first day of treatment [58]. Guidelines similarly emphasize early imaging, recommending ultrasound (including axillary arteries) as the initial test, while noting that delayed imaging of any type increases false-negative rates [60]. Although our meta-analysis excluded studies with prolonged steroid exposure, real-world decision-making requires balancing treatment urgency against diagnostic yield. In many fast-track pathways, ultrasound is performed at presentation because of its immediate availability [53]. When ultrasound is negative or inconclusive but clinical suspicion remains high, MRI can be considered, particularly if steroid exposure has been brief. Consequently, it remains uncertain whether MRI and CDUS are equally susceptible to early corticosteroid effects in aggregated analyses. This limitation affects how pooled estimates translate to clinical practice, where treatment is often started immediately to protect vision.

Overall, our data show that MRI is associated with more consistent performance in published studies and that CDUS accuracy is highly variable but can be excellent in experienced hands. Differences in reported performance likely reflect a combination of modality characteristics, study selection, protocol standardization, operator and reader expertise, and publication patterns. A cautious interpretive approach that references guideline frameworks and local diagnostic resources will best serve clinicians faced with suspected GCA.

Limitations

The present analysis has several limitations. Heterogeneity in imaging protocols and diagnostic thresholds; including probe frequency, Doppler settings, MRI sequences, coil use, and arterial territories examined, contributed to between-study variance and limits direct comparability. Reference standards also varied, with some studies relying on clinical diagnosis or composite outcomes rather than biopsy or long-term adjudication, introducing potential misclassification bias. The timing of corticosteroid exposure was inconsistently reported, preventing stratification of diagnostic accuracy by treatment interval. MRI studies were predominantly conducted in specialized academic centers with standardized protocols, which may overestimate performance in routine practice and increase susceptibility to publication bias. Operator and reader effects further influence accuracy, as ultrasound depends on sonographer expertise and MRI on scanner characteristics and radiologist experience, yet these factors were inconsistently reported. Finally, potential publication and selective-reporting biases could inflate pooled estimates for either modality. 

Conclusions

In conclusion, within the published literature, MRI shows more consistent and reproducible diagnostic performance for GCA, while CDUS demonstrates greater variability related to operator dependence. Both modalities play complementary roles. Ultrasound remains an effective and scalable first-line test in experienced centers, particularly within fast-track pathways, while MRI provides useful confirmatory information when ultrasound is inconclusive or expertise is limited. Imaging choice should be guided by clinical context, local expertise, access, and timing of corticosteroid therapy. Overall, our findings support imaging-based diagnostic pathways for GCA, with careful consideration of the strengths and limitations of each modality.

Acknowledgments

Mustapha El Yaman and Fatima Khan contributed equally to this work and share first authorship.

Disclosures

Conflicts of interest: In compliance with the ICMJE uniform disclosure form, all authors declare the following:

Payment/services info: All authors have declared that no financial support was received from any organization for the submitted work.

Financial relationships: All authors have declared that they have no financial relationships at present or within the previous three years with any organizations that might have an interest in the submitted work.

Other relationships: All authors have declared that there are no other relationships or activities that could appear to have influenced the submitted work.

Author Contributions

Acquisition, analysis, or interpretation of data:  Baqir S. Al-Lami, Mustapha El Yaman, Bareq S. Al-Lami, Fatima Khan, Yasir Al-Lami, Abdulrahman O. Saeed

Drafting of the manuscript:  Baqir S. Al-Lami, Mustapha El Yaman, Bareq S. Al-Lami, Fatima Khan, Yasir Al-Lami, Abdulrahman O. Saeed

Critical review of the manuscript for important intellectual content:  Baqir S. Al-Lami, Mustapha El Yaman, Bareq S. Al-Lami, Fatima Khan, Yasir Al-Lami, Leen El Yaman

Concept and design:  Mustapha El Yaman, Bareq S. Al-Lami, Fatima Khan, Leen El Yaman

Supervision:  Mustapha El Yaman, Bareq S. Al-Lami, Fatima Khan

References

  • 1.Giant-cell arteritis and polymyalgia rheumatica. Weyand CM, Goronzy JJ. N Engl J Med. 2014;371:50–57. doi: 10.1056/NEJMc1409206. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Polymyalgia rheumatica and giant-cell arteritis. Salvarani C, Cantini F, Hunder GG. Lancet. 2008;372:234–245. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(08)61077-6. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Skip lesions in temporal arteritis. Klein RG, Campbell RJ, Hunder GG, Carney JA. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/950804/ Mayo Clin Proc. 1976;51:504–510. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.False-negative temporal artery biopsy. Ashton-Key MR, Gallagher PJ. Am J Surg Pathol. 1992;16:634–635. doi: 10.1097/00000478-199206000-00014. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Color duplex ultrasonography in the diagnosis of temporal arteritis. Schmidt WA, Kraft HE, Vorpahl K, Völker L, Gromnica-Ihle EJ. N Engl J Med. 1997;337:1336–1342. doi: 10.1056/NEJM199711063371902. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Role of ultrasonography in the diagnosis of temporal arteritis. Ball EL, Walsh SR, Tang TY, Gohil R, Clarke JM. Br J Surg. 2010;97:1765–1771. doi: 10.1002/bjs.7252. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.High-resolution magnetic resonance vessel wall imaging in cerebrovascular diseases. Adhithyan R, Kesav P, Thomas B, Sylaja PN, Kesavadas C. Neurol India. 2018;66:1124–1132. doi: 10.4103/0028-3886.236964. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.EULAR recommendations for the use of imaging in large vessel vasculitis in clinical practice. Dejaco C, Ramiro S, Duftner C, et al. Ann Rheum Dis. 2018;77:636–643. doi: 10.1136/annrheumdis-2017-212649. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.2022 American College of Rheumatology/EULAR classification criteria for giant cell arteritis. Ponte C, Grayson PC, Robson JC, et al. Arthritis Rheumatol. 2022;74:1881–1889. doi: 10.1002/art.42325. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.QUADAS-2: a revised tool for the quality assessment of diagnostic accuracy studies. Whiting PF, Rutjes AW, Westwood ME, et al. Ann Intern Med. 2011;155:529–536. doi: 10.7326/0003-4819-155-8-201110180-00009. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Bivariate analysis of sensitivity and specificity produces informative summary measures in diagnostic reviews. Reitsma JB, Glas AS, Rutjes AW, Scholten RJ, Bossuyt PM, Zwinderman AH. J Clin Epidemiol. 2005;58:982–990. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2005.02.022. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Preferred reporting items for a systematic review and meta-analysis of diagnostic test accuracy studies: the PRISMA-DTA statement. McInnes MD, Moher D, Thombs BD, et al. JAMA. 2018;319:388–396. doi: 10.1001/jama.2017.19163. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.The role of ultrasound compared to biopsy of temporal arteries in the diagnosis and treatment of giant cell arteritis (TABUL): a diagnostic accuracy and cost-effectiveness study. Luqmani R, Lee E, Singh S, et al. Health Technol Assess. 2016;20:1–238. doi: 10.3310/hta20900. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Comparison of temporal artery ultrasound versus biopsy in the diagnosis of giant cell arteritis. Hansen MS, Terslev L, Jensen MR, et al. Eye (Lond) 2023;37:344–349. doi: 10.1038/s41433-022-01947-1. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Diagnostic validity of Doppler ultrasound in giant cell arteritis. Aranda-Valera IC, García Carazo S, Monjo Henry I, De Miguel Mendieta E. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/28244857/ Clin Exp Rheumatol. 2017;35:123–127. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Performance of the 2022 ACR/EULAR giant cell arteritis classification criteria for diagnosis in patients with suspected giant cell arteritis in routine clinical care. Molina-Collada J, Castrejón I, Monjo I, Fernández-Fernández E, Torres Ortiz G, Álvaro-Gracia JM, de Miguel E. RMD Open. 2023;9:0. doi: 10.1136/rmdopen-2022-002970. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Validation of a multimodal algorithm for diagnosing giant cell arteritis with imaging. Lecler A, Hage R, Charbonneau F, et al. Diagn Interv Imaging. 2022;103:103–110. doi: 10.1016/j.diii.2021.09.008. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Comparison of duplex sonography and high-resolution magnetic resonance imaging in the diagnosis of giant cell (temporal) arteritis. Bley TA, Reinhard M, Hauenstein C, et al. Arthritis Rheum. 2008;58:2574–2578. doi: 10.1002/art.23699. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.An in-depth comparison of vascular inflammation on ultrasound, FDG-PET/CT and MRI in patients with suspected giant cell arteritis. van Nieuwland M, Nienhuis PH, Haagsma C, et al. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2025;52:2491–2501. doi: 10.1007/s00259-025-07088-3. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Doppler ultrasound and giant cell arteritis. Suelves AM, España-Gregori E, Tembl J, Rohrweck S, Millán JM, Díaz-Llopis M. Clin Ophthalmol. 2010;4:1383–1384. doi: 10.2147/OPTH.S13006. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.The diagnostic accuracy of temporal artery ultrasound and temporal artery biopsy in giant cell arteritis: a single center Australian experience over 10 years. He J, Williamson L, Ng B, et al. Int J Rheum Dis. 2022;25:447–453. doi: 10.1111/1756-185X.14288. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.1T magnetic resonance imaging in the diagnosis of giant cell arteritis: comparison with ultrasonography and physical examination of temporal arteries. Ghinoi A, Zuccoli G, Nicolini A, et al. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/18799059/ Clin Exp Rheumatol. 2008;26:0–80. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Cranial ultrasound for the diagnosis of giant cell arteritis. A retrospective cohort study. Croft AP, Thompson N, Duddy MJ, Barton C, Khattak F, Mollan SP, Jobanputra P. J R Coll Physicians Edinb. 2015;45:268–272. doi: 10.4997/JRCPE.2015.403. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.The role of color doppler ultrasonography in the diagnosis of giant cell arteritis in ophthalmic patients. El-Jade M. J Ultrasound. 2024;27:81–85. doi: 10.1007/s40477-023-00815-2. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Temporal artery compression sonography for the diagnosis of giant cell arteritis in elderly patients with acute ocular arterial occlusions. Czihal M, Köhler A, Lottspeich C, et al. Rheumatology (Oxford) 2021;60:2190–2196. doi: 10.1093/rheumatology/keaa515. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.The use of temporal artery ultrasound in the diagnosis of giant cell arteritis in routine practice. Black R, Roach D, Rischmueller M, Lester SL, Hill CL. Int J Rheum Dis. 2013;16:352–357. doi: 10.1111/1756-185X.12108. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Color duplex ultrasound of the temporal artery: replacement for biopsy in temporal arteritis (Article in German) Schmid R, Hermann M, Yannar A, Baumgartner RW. https://doi.org/10.1159/000048291. Ophthalmologica. 2002;216:16–21. doi: 10.1159/000048291. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Performance characteristics and predictors of temporal artery ultrasound for the diagnosis of giant cell arteritis in routine clinical practice in a prospective cohort. Conway R, O'Neill L, McCarthy GM, et al. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30620296/ Clin Exp Rheumatol. 2019;37 Suppl 117:72–78. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.The utility of color duplex ultrasonography in the diagnosis of temporal arteritis. LeSar CJ, Meier GH, DeMasi RJ, et al. J Vasc Surg. 2002;36:1154–1160. doi: 10.1067/mva.2002.129648. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Determination of the value of color Doppler ultrasound in patients with a clinical suspicion of giant cell arteritis. Kaandorp BI, Raterman HG, Stam F, Gamala M, Meijer-Jorna LB, Kalb FB, Wallis JW. ACR Open Rheumatol. 2024;6:56–63. doi: 10.1002/acr2.11628. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Diagnostic performance and utility of very high-resolution ultrasonography in diagnosing giant cell arteritis of the temporal artery. Sundholm JK, Pettersson T, Paetau A, Albäck A, Sarkola T. https://doi.org/10.1093/rap/rkz018. Rheumatol Adv Pract. 2019;3:0. doi: 10.1093/rap/rkz018. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Diagnostic performance of colour duplex ultrasonography along with temporal artery biopsy in suspicion of giant cell arteritis. Roncato C, Allix-Béguec C, Brottier-Mancini E, Gombert B, Denis G. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/28339362/ Clin Exp Rheumatol. 2017;35 Suppl 103:119–122. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Colour-duplex ultrasonography of the temporal and ophthalmic arteries in the diagnosis and follow-up of giant cell arteritis. Pérez López J, Solans Laqué R, Bosch Gil JA, Molina Cateriano C, Huguet Redecilla P, Vilardell Tarrés M. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/19646351/ Clin Exp Rheumatol. 2009;27:0–82. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Limited value of temporal artery ultrasonography examinations for diagnosis of giant cell arteritis: analysis of 77 subjects. Maldini C, Dépinay-Dhellemmes C, Tra TT, et al. J Rheumatol. 2010;37:2326–2330. doi: 10.3899/jrheum.100353. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 35.The role of color duplex sonography in the diagnosis of giant cell arteritis. Romera-Villegas A, Vila-Coll R, Poca-Dias V, Cairols-Castellote MA. J Ultrasound Med. 2004;23:1493–1498. doi: 10.7863/jum.2004.23.11.1493. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 36.The utility of color duplex ultrasonography in the diagnosis of giant cell arteritis: a prospective, masked study. (An American Ophthalmological Society thesis) Bilyk JR, Murchison AP, Leiby BT, Sergott RC, Eagle RC, Needleman L, Savino PJ. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29967570/ Trans Am Ophthalmol Soc. 2017;115:0. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 37.The predictive value of the halo sign in color Doppler ultrasonography of the temporal arteries for diagnosing giant cell arteritis. Nesher G, Shemesh D, Mates M, Sonnenblick M, Abramowitz HB. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/12064840/ J Rheumatol. 2002;29:1224–1226. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 38.Color duplex ultrasonography of temporal arteries: role in diagnosis and follow-up of suspected cases of temporal arteritis. Habib HM, Essa AA, Hassan AA. Clin Rheumatol. 2012;31:231–237. doi: 10.1007/s10067-011-1808-0. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 39.Giant cell arteritis of the occipital arteries-a prospective color coded duplex sonography study in 78 patients. Pfadenhauer K, Weber H. J Neurol. 2003;250:844–849. doi: 10.1007/s00415-003-1104-2. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 40.The use of ultrasound as an aid in the diagnosis of giant cell arteritis: a pilot study comparing histological features with ultrasound findings. Murgatroyd H, Nimmo M, Evans A, MacEwen C. Eye (Lond) 2003;17:415–419. doi: 10.1038/sj.eye.6700350. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 41.Color-coded sonography in suspected temporal arteritis-experiences after 83 cases. Reinhard M, Schmidt D, Hetzel A. Rheumatol Int. 2004;24:340–346. doi: 10.1007/s00296-003-0372-6. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 42.High-frequency ultrasound with superb microvascular imaging: a potential tool for ultrasound assessment in patients with giant cell arteritis. Skoog J, Svensson C, Eriksson P, Sjöwall C, Zachrisson H. Front Med (Lausanne) 2024;11:1431385. doi: 10.3389/fmed.2024.1431385. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 43.Vascular involvement in patients with giant cell arteritis determined by duplex sonography of 2x11 arterial regions. Aschwanden M, Kesten F, Stern M, et al. Ann Rheum Dis. 2010;69:1356–1359. doi: 10.1136/ard.2009.122135. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 44.3D T1-weighted black-blood magnetic resonance imaging for the diagnosis of giant cell arteritis. Rodriguez-Régent C, Ben Hassen W, Seners P, Oppenheim C, Régent A. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32301421/ Clin Exp Rheumatol. 2020;38 Suppl 124:95–98. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 45.High-resolution MRI in giant cell arteritis: imaging of the wall of the superficial temporal artery. Bley TA, Wieben O, Uhl M, Thiel J, Schmidt D, Langer M. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2005;184:283–287. doi: 10.2214/ajr.184.1.01840283. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 46.Three-dimensional high-resolution black-blood magnetic resonance imaging for detection of arteritic anterior ischemic optic neuropathy in patients with giant cell arteritis. Sommer NN, Treitl KM, Coppenrath E, et al. Invest Radiol. 2018;53:698–704. doi: 10.1097/RLI.0000000000000500. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 47.Three Tesla 3D high-resolution vessel wall MRI of the orbit may differentiate arteritic from nonarteritic anterior ischemic optic neuropathy. Mohammed-Brahim N, Clavel G, Charbonneau F, et al. Invest Radiol. 2019;54:712–718. doi: 10.1097/RLI.0000000000000595. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 48.High-resolution magnetic resonance imaging of scalp arteries and ultrasound of temporal arteries: a winning strategy for diagnosing giant cell arteritis? Comment on the article by Rhéaume et al. Boulon C, Skopinski S, Constans J. Arthritis Rheumatol. 2017;69:477. doi: 10.1002/art.39937. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 49.High-resolution MRI demonstrates signal abnormalities of the 3rd cranial nerve in giant cell arteritis patients with 3rd cranial nerve impairment. Mournet S, Sené T, Charbonneau F, et al. Eur Radiol. 2021;31:4472–4480. doi: 10.1007/s00330-020-07595-x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 50.Contextualizing temporal arterial magnetic resonance angiography in the diagnosis of giant cell arteritis: a retrospective cohort study. Junek M, Hu A, Garner S, Rebello R, Legault K, Beattie K, Khalidi N. Rheumatology (Oxford) 2021;60:4229–4237. doi: 10.1093/rheumatology/keaa916. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 51.Giant cell arteritis: diagnostic accuracy of MR imaging of superficial cranial arteries in initial diagnosis-results from a multicenter trial. Klink T, Geiger J, Both M, et al. Radiology. 2014;273:844–852. doi: 10.1148/radiol.14140056. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 52.The diagnostic value of ultrasonography-derived edema of the temporal artery wall in giant cell arteritis: a second meta-analysis. Arida A, Kyprianou M, Kanakis M, Sfikakis PP. BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2010;11:44. doi: 10.1186/1471-2474-11-44. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 53.Novel ultrasonographic Halo score for giant cell arteritis: assessment of diagnostic accuracy and association with ocular ischaemia. van der Geest KS, Borg F, Kayani A, et al. Ann Rheum Dis. 2020;79:393–399. doi: 10.1136/annrheumdis-2019-216343. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 54.Definitions and reliability assessment of elementary ultrasound lesions in giant cell arteritis: a study from the OMERACT large vessel vasculitis ultrasound working group. Chrysidis S, Duftner C, Dejaco C, et al. RMD Open. 2018;4:0. doi: 10.1136/rmdopen-2017-000598. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 55.EULAR recommendations for the use of imaging in large vessel vasculitis in clinical practice: 2023 update. Dejaco C, Ramiro S, Bond M, et al. Ann Rheum Dis. 2024;83:741–751. doi: 10.1136/ard-2023-224543. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 56.Effects of early corticosteroid treatment on magnetic resonance imaging and ultrasonography findings in giant cell arteritis. Hauenstein C, Reinhard M, Geiger J, et al. Rheumatology (Oxford) 2012;51:1999–2003. doi: 10.1093/rheumatology/kes153. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 57.Imaging in diagnosis, outcome prediction and monitoring of large vessel vasculitis: a systematic literature review and meta-analysis informing the EULAR recommendations. Duftner C, Dejaco C, Sepriano A, Falzon L, Schmidt WA, Ramiro S. RMD Open. 2018;4:0. doi: 10.1136/rmdopen-2017-000612. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 58.Diagnosis of giant cell arteritis. Ponte C, Martins-Martinho J, Luqmani RA. Rheumatology (Oxford) 2020;59:0. doi: 10.1093/rheumatology/kez553. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 59.British Society for Rheumatology guideline on diagnosis and treatment of giant cell arteritis. Mackie SL, Dejaco C, Appenzeller S, et al. Rheumatology (Oxford) 2020;59:0. doi: 10.1093/rheumatology/kez672. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 60.Ultrasound cut-off values for intima-media thickness of temporal, facial and axillary arteries in giant cell arteritis. Schäfer VS, Juche A, Ramiro S, Krause A, Schmidt WA. Rheumatology (Oxford) 2017;56:1479–1483. doi: 10.1093/rheumatology/kex143. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Articles from Cureus are provided here courtesy of Cureus Inc.

RESOURCES