The revolution and evolution of appropriateness in cardiac imaging.

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

4 citing papers in PubMed.

1. Appropriate use criteria for SPECT myocardial perfusion imaging: Are they appropriate for women?Journal of nuclear cardiology : official publication of the American Society of Nuclear Cardiology · 2016
   Article
2. Impact of insurance carrier, prior authorization, and socioeconomic status on appropriate use of SPECT myocardial perfusion imaging in private community-based office practice.Clinical cardiology · 2015
   Article
3. Cardiac magnetic resonance imaging; gatekeeper in suspected CAD?The international journal of cardiovascular imaging · 2011
   Article
4. 2009 ASNC keynote lecture: measuring cost, cost-effectiveness, and quality in cardiovascular imaging.Journal of nuclear cardiology : official publication of the American Society of Nuclear Cardiology · 2010
   Article

Corrections and comments

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

Authors and funding

1 author.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

Abstract

PubMed holds no abstract for this paper.

Indexed as