ArticleLa Radiologia medica2011
Diagnostic accuracy of 64-slice computed tomography coronary angiography in a large population of patients without revascularisation: registry data in NSTEMI acute coronary syndrome and influence of gender and risk factors.
Article in La Radiologia medica, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Pooled it
- Technical principles, benefits, challenges, and applications of photon counting computed tomography in coronary imaging: a narrative review.Cardiovascular diagnosis and therapy · 2024Review
- Prognostic Value and Therapeutic Perspectives of Coronary CT Angiography: A Literature Review.BioMed research international · 2018Review
- Old and New NICE Guidelines for the Evaluation of New Onset Stable Chest Pain: A Real World Perspective.BioMed research international · 2018Review
- Role of MDCT coronary angiography in the clinical setting: economic implications.La Radiologia medica · 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
11 authors at 8 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThis study sought to evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of computed tomography coronary angiography (CTCA) for detecting significant coronary artery stenosis (≥50% lumen reduction) compared with conventional coronary angiography (CAG) in non-ST-elevation myocardial infarction-acute coronary syndrome (NSTEMI-ACS) and in subgroups selected by gender and number of risk factors (RF). MATERIALS AND
methodsWe selected from a population of 1,500 patients in a multicentre registry with NSTEMI-ACS who had undergone CTCA and CAG, (n=237; 187 men, mean age 63±10 years). Diagnostic accuracy and likelihood ratios (LR) of CTCA were assessed against CAG in the total population and subgroups (men, women: 0 RF = absence of RF, 1-2 RF = presence of one or two RF, >2 RF = presence of more than two RF).
resultsThe prevalence of obstructive disease was 53%. In the per-patient analysis, sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV) and negative predictive value (NPV) of CTCA were 100% (men 100%; women 100%; 0 RF 100%; 1-2 RF 100%; >2 RF 100%), 95% (men 98%; women 50%; 0 RF NA% (NA, not assessable); 1-2 RF 96%; >2 RF 96%), 95% (men 98%; women 91%; 0 RF 91%; 1-2 RF 96%; >2 RF 96%), 100% (men 100%; women 100%; 0 RF NV%; 1-2 RF 100%; >2 RF 100%), respectively. The per-segment analysis showed a reduction in PPV (ranging between 56% and 67%). The per-patient LR+ ranged between 18 and 27, whereas LR-were always 0. We observed no significant differences in diagnostic accuracy between subgroups.
conclusionsCTCA is a reliable diagnostic modality with high sensitivity and NPV in NSTEMI-ACS patients who are not candidates for early revascularisation, regardless of gender and number of risk factors.
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.