Evidence map›Paper›PMID 21217929›Full record

ArticleKorean circulation journal2010

Current Concepts in Cardiac CT Angiography for Patients With Acute Chest Pain.

Seung Min Yoo, Ji Young Rho, Hwa Yeon Lee, In Sup Song, Jae Youn Moon, Charles S White

Open access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Korean circulation journal, 2010. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed
0.7field-weighted citation impact, top 24% of its field
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

7 citing papers in PubMed, 15 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Role of CT and MRI in Cardiac Emergencies.Tomography (Ann Arbor, Mich.) · 2022
    Review
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Modern diagnostics for type B aortic dissection.Gefasschirurgie : Zeitschrift fur vaskulare und endovaskulare Chirurgie : Organ der Deutschen und der Osterreichischen Gesellschaft fur Gefasschirurgie unter Mitarbeit der Schweizerischen Gesellschaft fur Gefasschirurgie
    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

6 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.

Seung Min YooDepartment of Diagnostic Radiology, CHA Medical University Hospital, Seongnam, Korea.
Ji Young Rho
Hwa Yeon Lee
In Sup Song
Jae Youn Moon
Charles S White
CHA University · KRChung-Ang University · KRUniversity of Maryland Medical Center · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

This article presents specific examples of delayed diagnosis of acute coronary syndrome, acute aortic dissection, and pulmonary embolism resulting from evaluating patients with nonspecific acute chest pain who did not undergo immediate dedicated coronary CT angiography (CTA) or triple rule-out protocol (TRO). These concrete examples of delayed diagnosis may advance the concept of using cardiac CTA (i.e., dedicated coronary CTA versus TRO) to triage patients with nonspecific acute chest pain. This article also provides an overall understanding of how to choose the most appropriate examination based on the specific clinical situation in the emergency department (i.e., dedicated coronary CTA versus TRO versus dedicated pulmonary or aortic CTA), how to interpret the CTA results, and the pros and cons of biphasic versus triphasic administration of intravenous contrast material during TRO examination. A precise understanding of various cardiac CTA protocols will improve the diagnostic performance of radiologists while minimizing hazards related to radiation exposure and contrast use.

Indexed as

Acute aortic syndromeAcute coronary syndromePulmonary embolismTomography, X-ray computed

Identifiers

PMID21217929
PMCPMC3008823
OpenAlexW2157494073

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.