ArticleLa Radiologia medica2013
Role of MDCT coronary angiography in the clinical setting: economic implications.
Article in La Radiologia medica, 2013. 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.
- Cardiac-CT and cardiac-MR cost-effectiveness: a literature review.La Radiologia medica · 2020Review
- Cardiac CT for myocardial ischaemia detection and characterization--comparative analysis.The British journal of radiology · 2014Review
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThis study evaluated the incremental value and cost-effectiveness ratio of introducing coronary angiography (CA) with multidetector computed tomography (MDCT-CA) in the diagnostic management of patients with suspected coronary artery disease (CAD) compared with the traditional diagnostic workup. MATERIAL AND
methodsFive hundred and fifty consecutive patients who underwent MDCT-CA between January 2009 and June 2011 were considered. Patients with atypical chest pain and suspected obstructive CAD were directed to one of two diagnostic pathways: the traditional protocol (examination, stress test, CA) and the current protocol (examination, stress test, MDCT-CA, and CA, if necessary). The costs of each protocol and for the individual method were calculated. Based on the results, the cost-effectiveness ratio of the two diagnostic pathways was compared. A third, modified, diagnostic pathway has been proposed with its relative cost-effectiveness ratio (examination, MDCT-CA, stress test, and CA, if necessary).
resultsStress test vs. MDCT-CA had an accuracy of 66%, a sensitivity and specificity of 21% and 87%, respectively, and a positive (PPV) and negative (NPV) predictive value of 40% and 70%, respectively. Comparison between conventional CA (CCA) and MDCT-CA showed a sensitivity and specificity of 92% and 89%, respectively, a PPV and NPV of 89%, and an accuracy of 92%. The traditional protocol has higher costs than the second protocol: 1,645 euro against 322 euro (mean), but it shows a better cost-effectiveness ratio. The new proposed protocol has lower costs, mean 261 euro, with a better costeffectiveness ratio than the traditional protocol.
conclusionsThe diagnostic protocol for patients with suspected CAD has been modified by the introduction of MDCT-CA. Our study confirms the greater diagnostic performance of MDCT-CA compared with stress test and its similar accuracy to CCA. The use of MDCT-CA to select patients for CCA has a favourable cost-effectiveness profile.
Indexed as
Identifiers
23716289What 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.