Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 347

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 25 of the 25 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Treatment of giant cell arteritis using induction therapy with high‐dose glucocorticoids: A double‐blind, placebo‐controlled, randomized prospective clinical trial

Mazlumzadeh, Mehrdad, Hunder, Gene G., Easley, Kirk A., Calamia, Kenneth T., Matteson, Eric L., Griffing, W. Leroy, Younge, Brian R., Weyand, Cornelia M., Goronzy, Jörg J.·2006·Arthritis & Rheumatism

Abstract

Objective: Glucocorticoid (GC) therapy for giant cell arteritis (GCA) is effective but requires prolonged administration, resulting in adverse side effects. The goal of the current study was to test the hypothesis that induction treatment with high‐dose pulse intravenous (IV) methylprednisolone permits a shorter course of therapy. Methods: Twenty‐seven patients with biopsy‐proven GCA were enrolled in a randomized, double‐blind, placebo‐controlled study to receive IV methylprednisolone (15 mg/kg of ideal body weight/day) or IV saline for 3 consecutive days. All patients were started on 40 mg/day prednisone and followed the same tapering schedule as long as disease activity was controlled. The numbers of patients with disease in remission after 36, 52, and 78 weeks of treatment and taking ≤5 mg/day prednisone were compared. Cumulative prednisone dose, number of relapses, and development of adverse GC effects were assessed. Results: Ten of the 14 IV GC–treated patients, but only 2 of 13 control patients, were taking ≤5 mg/day prednisone at 36 weeks (P = 0.003). This difference was maintained; there was a higher number of sustained remissions after discontinuation of treatment in the IV GC–treated group and a lower median daily dose of prednisone at 78 weeks (P = 0.0004). The median cumulative dose of oral prednisone, excluding the IV GC dose, was 5,636 mg in the IV GC–treated group compared with 7,860 mg in the IV saline–treated group (P = 0.001). Conclusion: Initial treatment of GCA with IV GC pulses allowed for more rapid tapering of oral GCs and had long‐term benefits, with a higher frequency of patients experiencing sustained remission of their disease after discontinuation of treatment.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1002/art.22163

Cites

25 of 25 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 25 references

Cited by

See all 347

Metadata

Authors
Mazlumzadeh, M., Hunder, G. G., Easley, K. A., Calamia, K. T., Matteson, E. L., Griffing, W. L., Younge, B. R., Weyand, C. M., & Goronzy, J. J.
Venue
Arthritis & Rheumatism
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2006-09-28
Volume
54
Issue
10
Pages
3310-3318
ISSN
  • 0004-3591 (ISSN-L)
  • 1529-0131
OpenAlex
W1992168643
Cited by
347
References
25
FWCI
15.56
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Treatment of giant cell arteritis using induction therapy with high‐dose glucocorticoids: A double‐blind, placebo‐controlled, randomized prospective clinical trial. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1002/art.22163
The paper
Mazlumzadeh, M., Hunder, G. G., Easley, K. A., Calamia, K. T., Matteson, E. L., Griffing, W. L., Younge, B. R., Weyand, C. M., & Goronzy, J. J. (2006). Treatment of giant cell arteritis using induction therapy with high‐dose glucocorticoids: A double‐blind, placebo‐controlled, randomized prospective clinical trial. Arthritis & Rheumatism. https://doi.org/10.1002/art.22163

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.