Evidence map›Paper›PMID 17164481›Full record

ArticleHeart (British Cardiac Society)2007

Cardiothoracic ratio within the "normal" range independently predicts mortality in patients undergoing coronary angiography.

M Justin S Zaman, Julie Sanders, Angela M Crook, Gene Feder, Martin Shipley, Adam Timmis, Harry Hemingway

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Heart (British Cardiac Society), 2007. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 24 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
24citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

24 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Diagnostic performance of chest radiography measurements for the assessment of cardiac chamber enlargement.CMAJ : Canadian Medical Association journal = journal de l'Association medicale canadienne · 2021
    Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Observational
  15. Article
  16. Observational
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors.

M Justin S ZamanDepartment of Epidemiology and Public Health, University College London, London, UK. j.zaman@ucl.ac.uk
Julie Sanders
Angela M Crook
Gene Feder
Martin Shipley
Adam Timmis
Harry Hemingway

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveTo determine whether cardiothoracic ratio (CTR), within the range conventionally considered normal, predicted prognosis in patients undergoing coronary angiography.

designCohort study with a median of 7-years follow-up.

settingConsecutive patients undergoing coronary angiography at Barts and The London National Health Service (NHS) Trust. SUBJECTS: 1005 patients with CTRs measured by chest radiography, and who subsequently underwent coronary angiography. Of these patients, 7.3% had a CTR > or =0.5 and were excluded from the analyses. OUTCOMES: All-cause mortality and coronary event (non-fatal myocardial infarction or coronary death). Adjustments were made for age, left ventricular dysfunction, ACE inhibitor treatment, body mass index, number of diseased coronary vessels and past coronary artery bypass graft.

resultsThe risk of death was increased among patients with a CTR in the upper part of the normal range. In total, 94 (18.9%) of those with a CTR below the median of 0.42 died compared with 120 (27.8%) of those with a CTR between 0.42 and 0.49 (log rank test p<0.001). After adjusting for potential confounders, this increased risk remained (adjusted HR 1.45, 95% CI 1.03 to 2.05). CTR, at values below 0.5, was linearly related to the risk of coronary event (test for trend p = 0.024).

conclusionIn patients undergoing coronary angiography, CTR between 0.42 and 0.49 was associated with higher mortality than in patients with smaller hearts. There was evidence of a continuous increase in risk with higher CTR. These findings, along with those in healthy populations, question the conventional textbook cut-off point of > or =0.5 being an abnormal CTR.

Indexed as

AnthropometryCohort StudiesCoronary AngiographyCoronary DiseaseFemaleFollow-Up StudiesHeartHumansMaleMiddle AgedPredictive Value of TestsReference ValuesRisk AssessmentRisk FactorsSurvival AnalysisThorax

Identifiers

PMID17164481
PMCPMC1861494

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.