ArticleExpert review of medical devices2012
Cardiovascular magnetic resonance for diagnosis of coronary artery disease: quo vadis?
Article in Expert review of medical devices, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 0 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
- Comment on
Authors and funding
3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Cardiovascular magnetic resonance imaging (CMR) has emerged as a potential modality for the diagnosis and risk stratification of patients with documented or suspected coronary artery disease. As such, it may be used as an alternative to other accepted noninvasive modalities. In the Clinical Evaluation of Magnetic Resonance Imaging in Coronary Heart Disease (CE-MARC) study, Greenwood et al. enrolled 752 patients with suspected angina pectoris and at least one cardiovascular risk factor, and evaluated the diagnostic accuracy of multiparametric CMR and single photon emission computed tomography (SPECT), and compared them with invasive coronary angiography as the reference standard. The authors reported significantly higher sensitivity and negative predictive values for CMR (86.5 and 90.5%, respectively) compared with SPECT (66.5 and 79.1%, respectively) and recommended that CMR be used more frequently than at present for the investigation of coronary artery disease. This robustly designed landmark trial certainly adds to the already impressive diagnostic data available with CMR in such patients, but being a new technique, it lacks the large outcome data available with SPECT. In summary, the results of this study confirm the promise for CMR, but further work and larger multicenter studies are required before its adoption into routine clinical practice.
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.