ArticleThe international journal of cardiovascular imaging2010
Reproducibility in the assessment of noncalcified coronary plaque with 256-slice multi-detector CT and automated plaque analysis software.
Article in The international journal of cardiovascular imaging, 2010. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 16 citations in OpenAlex.
- Comparison of Two Contemporary Quantitative Atherosclerotic Plaque Assessment Tools for Coronary Computed Tomography Angiography: Single-Center Analysis and Multi-Center Patient Cohort Validation.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- Computed tomographic angiography measures of coronary plaque in clinical trials:Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 2024Review
- Coronary CT Angiography: Variability of CT Scanners and Readers in Measurement of Plaque Volume.Radiology · 2016Article
- Coronary CT findings of coronary to bronchial arterial communication in chronic pulmonary disease.The international journal of cardiovascular imaging · 2015Article
- Asymptomatic subjects with zero coronary calcium score: coronary CT angiographic features of plaques in event-prone patients.The international journal of cardiovascular imaging · 2013Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
We aimed to assess intra- and inter-observer reproducibility in evaluating volume and characteristics of non-calcified coronary plaques (NCPs) using a 256-slice multi-detector computed tomography (MDCT) angiography and dedicated automated plaque analysis software in asymptomatic individuals. Forty-two NCPs from 39 patients with a vessel diameter >2 mm were evaluated using a 256-slice MDCT with dedicated automated plaque analysis software. Two independent observers analyzed the characteristics of NCPs, including plaque volume (vol), mean CT number of the NCPs in Hounsfield units (HU(mean)), and remodeling index (RI). One of the observers repeated the evaluation of all datasets after an interval of at least 4 weeks. Bland-Altman analysis and concordance correlation coefficients (CCCs) were used to determine intra- and inter-observer variability. For vol measurements, the 95% limits of agreement were -21.6 and 13.2 mm(3), and -24.6 and 20.3 mm(3) for intra- and inter-observer variability, respectively. For HU(mean) measurements, the 95% limits of agreement were -22.2 and 20.8 HU, and -21.1 and 21.0 HU for intra- and inter-observer variability, respectively. For RI measurements, the 95% limits of agreement were -0.38 and 0.39, and -0.51 and 0.36 for intra- and inter-observer variability, respectively. The CCCs was very high for all measurements, ranging from 0.90 to 0.98. Using 256-slice MDCT with dedicated automated plaque analysis software, intra- and inter-observer reproducibility were excellent in evaluating the volume and characteristics of NCP in asymptomatic individuals.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.