ArticleEuropean radiology2013
Restriction of the referral of patients with stable angina for CT coronary angiography by clinical evaluation and calcium score: impact on clinical decision making.
Article in European radiology, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- Technical feasibility and validation of a coronary artery calcium scoring system using CT coronary angiography images.European radiology · 2016Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo investigate the value of the calcium score (CaSc) plus clinical evaluation to restrict referral for CT coronary angiography (CTCA) by reducing the number of patients with an intermediate probability of coronary artery disease (CAD).
methodsWe retrospectively included 1,975 symptomatic stable patients who underwent clinical evaluation and CaSc calculation and CTCA or invasive coronary coronary angiography (ICA). The outcome was obstructive CAD (≥50 % diameter narrowing) assessed by ICA or CTCA in the absence of ICA. We investigated two models: (1) clinical evaluation consisting of chest pain typicality, gender, age, risk factors and ECG and (2) clinical evaluation with CaSc. Discrimination of the two models was compared. The stepwise reclassification of patients with an intermediate probability of CAD (10-90 %) after clinical evaluation followed by clinical evaluation with CaSc was assessed by clinical net reclassification improvement (NRI).
resultsDiscrimination of CAD was significantly improved by adding CaSc to the clinical evaluation (AUC: 0.80 vs. 0.89, P < 0.001). CaSc and CTCA could be avoided in 9 % using model 1 and an additional 29 % of CTCAs could be avoided using model 2. Clinical NRI was 57 %.
conclusionCaSc plus clinical evaluation may be useful in restricting further referral for CTCA by 38 % in symptomatic stable patients with suspected CAD. KEY POINTS: • CT calcium scores (CaSc) could proiritise referrals for CT coronary angiography (CTCA) • CaSc provides an incremental discriminatory value of CAD compared with clinical evaluation • Risk stratification is better when clinical evaluation is combined with CaSc • Appropriate use of clinical evaluation and CaSc helps avoid unnecessary CTCA referrals.
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.