Table 1.

[18F]FDG-PET/CT study and patient characteristics

Authors	Country	Study design	Patient population	Reference standard for PMR diagnosis	No. of PET/CT scans (PMR patients)	Median age (years), mean age (years)*	% male	Immunosuppressive treatment before PET/CT	Control group
Camellino et al. [21]	Italy	Prospective	PMR patients who had undergone 18F-FDG PET/CT at baseline	Bird’s criteria (retrospectively also fulfilling the ACR/EULAR criteria 2012)	65 (65)	73	32	No	Yes (OP and RA)
Charpentier et al. [22]	France	Retrospective	PMR patients who had undergone 18F-FDG PET/CT at baseline	ACR/EULAR criteria 2012	42 (42)	54* (young PMR) and 74* (elderly PMR)	65 (young PMR) and 29 (elderly group)	No	No
Cimmino et al. [23]	Italy	Prospective	PMR patients who had undergone 18F-FDG PET/CT at baseline or after therapy	Bird’s criteria	19 (19)	69*	44	In some cases	Yes (OP)
Devauchelle-Pensec et al. [24]	France	Prospective	PMR patients who had undergone 18F-FDG PET/CT at baseline and after therapy	Chuang’s criteria	60 (20)	67	65	Yes	No
Henckaerts et al. [25]	Belgium	Prospective	Suspected PMR patients who had undergone 18F-FDG PET/CT at baseline	Composite of clinical/biochemical/imaging results; confirmed by 6-month follow-up	not specified (67)	71	43	No	Yes (OD or ORD)
Horikoshi et al. [26]	Japan	Retrospective	PMR patients who had undergone 18F-FDG PET/CT at baseline	Composite of clinical/biochemical/imaging results	17 (17)	77 (75*)	53	No	Yes (OD or ORD)
Kaneko et al. [27]	Japan	Retrospective	PMR patients who had undergone 18F-FDG PET/CT at baseline	ACR/EULAR criteria 2012	20 (20)	73*	55	No	No
Lund-Petersen et al. [28]	Denmark	Retrospective	PMR patients who had undergone 18F-FDG PET/CT at baseline or after therapy	Unspecified clinical criteria	50 (50)	74	38	In some cases	No
Owen et al. [29]	Australia	Prospective	PMR patients who had undergone 18F-FDG PET/CT at baseline	ACR/EULAR criteria 2012	22 (22)	68*	59	No	No
Owen et al. [30]	Australia	Prospective	PMR patients who had undergone 18F-FDG PET/CT at baseline	ACR/EULAR criteria 2012	33 (33)	69*	55	No	Yes (OP or ORD)
Palard-Novello et al. [31]	France	Prospective	PMR patients who had undergone 18F-FDG PET/CT at baseline and after therapy	Chuang’s criteria	50 (18)	68*	67	Yes	No
Rehak et al. [33]	Czech Republic	Retrospective	PMR patients who had undergone 18F-FDG PET/CT at baseline	Healey’s criteria	35 (67)	70	43	No	No
Rehak et al. [32]	Czech Republic	Retrospective	PMR patients who had undergone 18F-FDG PET/CT at baseline and after therapy	ACR/EULAR criteria 2012	30 (15)	70	33	In some cases	No
Sondag et al. [34]	France	Retrospective	PMR patients who had undergone 18F-FDG PET/CT at baseline or after therapy	ACR/EULAR criteria 2012	50 (50)	69*	46	In some cases	Yes (OP)
Takahashi et al. [35]	Japan	Retrospective	PMR patients who had undergone 18F-FDG PET/CT at baseline	Chuang’s criteria (retrospectively also fulfilling Healey’s criteria)	27 (27)	78 (77*)	33	No	Yes (RA)
Wakura et al. [36]	Japan	Retrospective	PMR patients who had undergone 18F-FDG PET/CT at baseline	Healey’s criteria	15 (15)	72	33	No	Yes (RA)
Wendling et al. [37]	France	Retrospective	PMR patients who had undergone 18F-FDG PET/CT at baseline or after therapy	ACR/EULAR criteria 2012	101 (101)	69*	52	In some cases	Yes (OP)
Yamashita et al. [39]	Japan	Retrospective	PMR patients who had undergone 18F-FDG PET/CT at baseline	Chuang’s criteria (retrospectively also fulfilling Healey’s criteria)	14 (14)	73*	29	No	Yes (RA and ORD)
Yamashita et al. [38]	Japan	Retrospective	PMR patients who had undergone 18F-FDG PET/CT at baseline	Chuang’s criteria (retrospectively also fulfilling Healey’s criteria)	16 (16)	76*	25	No	Yes (SpA and RA)
Yuge et al. [40]	Japan	Retrospective	Suspected PMR patients who had undergone 18F-FDG PET/CT at baseline	ACR/EULAR criteria 2012 or Bird’s criteria	16 (16)	75*	6	No	Yes (OD or ORD)

OP oncological patients, ORD other rheumatic diseases, RA rheumatoid arthritis, SpA spondyloarthropathy