Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24282703›Full record

ReviewCardiovascular diagnosis and therapy2012

Coronary artery calcium scoring, what is answered and what questions remain.

George Youssef, Matthew J Budoff

Abstract readReview
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Cardiovascular diagnosis and therapy, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

12 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

George YoussefLos Angeles Biomedical Research Institute at Harbor-UCLA Medical Center, Torrance, CA, 90502, USA.
Matthew J Budoff

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Coronary artery calcification (CAC) is a widely used imaging modality for cardiovascular risk assessment in moderate risk patients. It has been shown to have a superior role predicting future cardiac events and survival rates when combined with other traditional risk factor scoring systems as Framingham risk score (FRS). Furthermore, it significantly reclassifies moderate risk patients into lower or higher risk categories. Higher risk groups like patients with diabetes, a higher prevalence of CAC has been shown to impart a high short term risk of CV events, while those with zero calcium score had excellent event-free survival, similar to non-diabetic patients. Having a zero calcium score is currently used in United Kingdom practice guidelines (NICE) as a gatekeeper for any further investigations in patients presenting to the emergency department (ED) with chest pain. Unanswered questions include the concept of CAC progression that need to be standardized with respect to technique, interpretation and subsequent management strategies. Studies also demonstrated that risk assessment using CAC was motivational to patients leading to better adherence to their preventive practices as well as medications. However, statin did not consistently prove beneficial in slowing the CAC progression rate, but did reduce CV events significantly in patients with increased CAC. Accordingly, more studies need to be conducted to further help understand the ideal way to utilize this imaging tool and decreasing downstream utilization.

Indexed as

calcium scorecardiovascular riskCoronary artery calciumcoronary artery disease

Identifiers

PMID24282703
PMCPMC3839142

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.