Trial reportEuropean radiology2012
Interobserver agreement for the detection of atherosclerotic plaque in coronary CT angiography: comparison of two low-dose image acquisition protocols with standard retrospectively ECG-gated reconstruction.
Trial report in European radiology, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 10 citations in OpenAlex.
- Reproducibility of coronary atherosclerotic plaque characteristics in populations with low, intermediate, and high prevalence of coronary artery disease by multidetector computer tomography: a guide to reliable visual coronary plaque assessments.The international journal of cardiovascular imaging · 2016Article
- Quantification and characterisation of coronary artery plaque volume and adverse plaque features by coronary computed tomographic angiography: a direct comparison to intravascular ultrasound.European radiology · 2013Article
- Diagnostic accuracy of combined coronary angiography and adenosine stress myocardial perfusion imaging using 320-detector computed tomography: pilot study.European radiology · 2013Article
- 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
11 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundWe compared the interobserver variability concerning the detection of calcified and non-calcified plaque in two different low-dose and standard retrospectively gated protocols for coronary CTA.
methods150 patients with low heart rates and less than 100 kg body weight were randomised and examined by contrast-enhanced dual-source CT coronary angiography (100 kV, 320 mAs). 50 patients were examined with prospectively ECG-triggered axial acquisition, 50 patients with prospectively ECG-triggered high pitch spiral acquisition, and 50 patients using spiral acquisition with retrospective ECG gating. Two investigators independently analysed the datasets concerning the presence of calcified and non-calcified plaque on a per-segment level.
resultsMean effective dose was 1.4 ± 0.2 mSv for axial, 0.8 ± 0.07 mSv for high-pitch spiral, and 5.3 ± 2.6 mSV for standard spiral acquisition (P < 0.0001). In axial acquisition, interobserver agreement concerning the presence of atherosclerotic plaque was achieved in 650/749 coronary segments (86.8%). In high-pitch spiral acquisition, agreement was achieved in 664/748 segments (88.8%, n.s.). In standard spiral acquisition, agreement was achieved in 672/738 segments (91.0%, P < 0.0001). Interobserver agreement was significantly higher for calcified than for non-calcified plaque in all data acquisition modes.
conclusionLow-dose coronary CT angiography permits the detection of coronary atherosclerotic plaque with good interobserver agreement. KEY POINTS: • Low-dose CT protocols permit coronary plaque detection with good interobserver agreement. • Image noise is a major predictor of interobserver variability. • Interobserver agreement is significantly higher for calcified than for non-calcified plaque.
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.