Value of coronary CTA in patients with known or suspected CAD and non-diagnostic initial myocardial perfusion testing: current evidence and clinical considerations.

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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

1. Cardiovascular risk assessment models: Have we found the perfect solution yet?Journal of nuclear cardiology : official publication of the American Society of Nuclear Cardiology · 2020
   Article
2. Stress CT perfusion: coupling coronary anatomy with physiology.Journal of nuclear cardiology : official publication of the American Society of Nuclear Cardiology · 2012
   Review
3. Zero coronary calcium in the presence of severe isolated left main stenosis detected by CT coronary angiography in a patient with typical angina and equivocal myocardial perfusion SPECT.Journal of nuclear cardiology : official publication of the American Society of Nuclear Cardiology · 2012
   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

2 authors.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

Abstract

PubMed holds no abstract for this paper.

Indexed as