ArticleJournal of nuclear cardiology : official publication of the American Society of Nuclear Cardiology2011
Evaluation of the appropriateness criteria for coronary computed tomography angiography in an academic medical center in a developing country: comparison of the 2006 and 2010 criteria.
Article in Journal of nuclear cardiology : official publication of the American Society of Nuclear Cardiology, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Non-invasive imaging in suspected coronary artery disease: Choosing the right test from the first time.Journal of nuclear cardiology : official publication of the American Society of Nuclear Cardiology · 2017Article
- Appropriateness and diagnostic yield of cardiac magnetic resonance imaging from a tertiary referral center in the Middle East.Cardiovascular diagnosis and therapy · 2015Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe aims of this study are to analyze the risk profile and evaluate the appropriateness of patient referral to coronary CT angiography in a new MSCT laboratory in an academic medical center in a developing country. METHODS AND
resultsThe study population consisted of 100 consecutive patients (mean age 53 ± 13 years, 83% males) who were referred to the new 64 slice MSCT laboratory at the American University of Beirut between July 2008 and July 2009. 52% of patients had chest pain and 48% were asymptomatic. By the 2006 ACCF criteria, only 8% of the referrals fitted the "Appropriate" criteria, 49% were "Inappropriate", and 43% were "Uncertain". The percentage of "Appropriate" indications increased from 8% by the 2006 criteria to 38% by the 2010 ACCF criteria. Framingham risk score (FRS) calculation showed a substantial percentage (46%) of patients to be at low risk, with 32% being at intermediate risk, and 22% at high risk. The prevalence of high calcium score (>400) (0% vs 22%, vs 27%, P < .001) and of obstructive CAD (4% vs 23% vs 40%, P < .001) increased steadily across the low, intermediate, and high FRS groups, respectively.
conclusionsThere was a significant increase in the percentage of "Appropriate" indications for MSCT when comparing the 2010 to the 2006 ACCF appropriateness criteria. However, in spite of that, there was still significant deviation from the ACCF appropriateness criteria among patients referred for coronary CT angiography in this new MSCT laboratory in a developing country.
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.