ArticleLa Radiologia medica2012
Role of coronary angiography MDCT in the clinical setting: changes in diagnostic workup in the real world.
Article in La Radiologia medica, 2012. 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, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThe authors sought to evaluate the incremental value of introducing coronary angiography with multidetector computed tomography (MDCT-CA) compared with the conventional diagnostic workup in managing patients with suspected coronary artery disease (CAD) workup. MATERIALS AND
methodsA total of 531 consecutive patients underwent MDCT-CA between April 2008 and August 2010. For each patient the pretest probability of CAD was obtained by using the Morise score as well as the diagnostic performance of the exercise test and of MDCT-CA, considering conventional coronary angiography (CCA) as the gold standard. Based on these results, we calculated the posttest likelihood of CAD after stress testing, comparing the incremental diagnostic value for each category of cardiovascular risk with data obtained with MDCT-CA. The conventional diagnostic workup (without MDCT-CA) was then compared with the modified workup (including MDCT-CA).
resultsThe diagnostic performance of the exercise test for identifying patients with significant lesions had a sensitivity and specificity of 20% and 88%, respectively, with positive (PPV) and negative (NPV) predictive value of 41% and 72%, respectively. Taking CA as the gold standard, MDCT-CA had 93% sensitivity, 89% specificity, 88% PPV and 93% NPV compared with CCA in evaluating significant stenoses in the per-patient analysis. The overall diagnostic accuracy of MDCT-CA was 91%. The exercise tests provided no significant incremental diagnostic value compared with cardiovascular history in patients with a low to intermediate risk. Comparison of the diagnostic accuracy of these protocols showed improved performance results for the modified protocol.
conclusionsMDCT-CA is the reference modality for the noninvasive exclusion of critical CAD. It provides a very high incremental diagnostic value compared with exercise testing in patients with a low to intermediate risk of CAD. The use of diagnostic protocols based on MDCT-CA ensures improved diagnostic performance compared with those involving conventional exercise electrocardiograms.
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.