ArticleCurrent treatment options in cardiovascular medicine2005
Cost-effectiveness of new tests to diagnose and treat coronary heart disease.
Article in Current treatment options in cardiovascular medicine, 2005. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- A Mass Spectrometry-Based Proteome Study of Twin Pairs Discordant for Incident Acute Myocardial Infarction within Three Years after Blood Sampling Suggests Novel Biomarkers.International journal of molecular sciences · 2024Article
- Cardiac risk - coronary calcium scoring for all?Reviews in cardiovascular medicine · 2009Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This article provides a review of the methods applied in defining cost-effectiveness as well as a review of the limited evidence base for defining incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of cardiovascular imaging when compared with an office-based risk assessment using the Framingham risk score. To date, there is a growing body of evidence that suggests that screening may be cost-effective in patients with an intermediate Framingham risk score. However, much of this evidence is derived from decision models or simulations that may not adequately represent the use of imaging evidence as it may be derived from "real world" or randomized trial data. Thus, we await additional evidence from large cohort studies or well-controlled clinical trials to define optimal economic efficiency strategies that may include the use of cardiovascular imaging in the screening of patients at risk for coronary heart disease.
Identifiers
16004858What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.