Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24374980›Full record

ArticleJournal of nuclear cardiology : official publication of the American Society of Nuclear Cardiology2014

ACCF/AHA/ASE/ASNC/HFSA/HRS/SCAI/SCCT/SCMR/STS 2013 multimodality appropriate use criteria for the detection and risk assessment of stable ischemic heart disease: a report of the American College of Cardiology Foundation Appropriate Use Criteria Task Force, American Heart Association, American Society of Echocardiography, American Society of Nuclear Cardiology, Heart Failure Society of America, Heart Rhythm Society, Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions, Society of Cardiovascular Computed Tomography, Society for Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance, and Society of Thoracic Surgeons.

Grace Ronan, Michael J Wolk, Steven R Bailey, John U Doherty, Pamela S Douglas, Robert C Hendel, Christopher M Kramer, James K Min, Manesh R Patel, Lisa Rosenbaum and 35 more

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of nuclear cardiology : official publication of the American Society of Nuclear Cardiology, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 25 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
25citing 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

25 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. ASNC model coverage policy: 2023 cardiac positron emission tomography.Journal of nuclear cardiology : official publication of the American Society of Nuclear Cardiology · 2023
    Article
  2. Quality metrics for single-photon emission computed tomography myocardial perfusion imaging: an ASNC information statement.Journal of nuclear cardiology : official publication of the American Society of Nuclear Cardiology · 2023
    Review
  3. Review
  4. Evaluation of the impact of laboratory accreditation on downstream outcomes.Journal of nuclear cardiology : official publication of the American Society of Nuclear Cardiology · 2021
    Article
  5. Stress myocardial perfusion imaging: Can we tell the results without doing the test?Journal of nuclear cardiology : official publication of the American Society of Nuclear Cardiology · 2021
    Article
  6. The Radiologist as a Gatekeeper in Chest Pain.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2021
    Review
  7. Article
  8. High-frequency QRS analysis to supplement ST evaluation in exercise stress electrocardiography: Incremental diagnostic accuracy and net reclassification.Journal of nuclear cardiology : official publication of the American Society of Nuclear Cardiology · 2020
    Article
  9. Article
  10. Do we need diagnostic strategies enhanced with genetic information for ischemic heart disease?Journal of nuclear cardiology : official publication of the American Society of Nuclear Cardiology · 2019
    Article
  11. Article
  12. Case Presentation Commentary on "Deciding wisely: A case for an effective use of myocardial perfusion imaging".Journal of nuclear cardiology : official publication of the American Society of Nuclear Cardiology · 2018
    Article
  13. Status of cardiovascular PET radiation exposure and strategies for reduction: An Information Statement from the Cardiovascular PET Task Force.Journal of nuclear cardiology : official publication of the American Society of Nuclear Cardiology · 2017
    Article
  14. Article
  15. Coronary artery calcium scanning in symptomatic patients: Ready for use as a gatekeeper for further testing?Journal of nuclear cardiology : official publication of the American Society of Nuclear Cardiology · 2017
    Article
  16. Outcomes after inappropriate nuclear myocardial perfusion imaging: A meta-analysis.Journal of nuclear cardiology : official publication of the American Society of Nuclear Cardiology · 2016
    Review
  17. Appropriate use criteria for SPECT myocardial perfusion imaging: Are they appropriate for women?Journal of nuclear cardiology : official publication of the American Society of Nuclear Cardiology · 2016
    Article
  18. Effect of changes in perfusion defect size during serial regadenoson myocardial perfusion imaging on cardiovascular outcomes in high-risk patients.Journal of nuclear cardiology : official publication of the American Society of Nuclear Cardiology · 2016
    Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

45 authors.

Grace RonanClinical Policy and Documents, American College of Cardiology, 2400 N Street, N.W., Washington, DC, 20036, USA, gronan@acc.org.
Michael J Wolk
Steven R Bailey
John U Doherty
Pamela S Douglas
Robert C Hendel
Christopher M Kramer
James K Min
Manesh R Patel
Lisa Rosenbaum
Leslee J Shaw
Raymond F Stainback
Joseph M Allen
Ralph G Brindis
Christopher M Kramer
Leslee J Shaw
Manuel D Cerqueira
Jersey Chen
Larry S Dean
Reza Fazel
W Gregory Hundley
Dipti Itchhaporia
Paul Kligfield
Richard Lockwood
Joseph Edward Marine
Robert Benjamin McCully
Joseph V Messer
Patrick T O'Gara
Richard J Shemin
L Samuel Wann
John B Wong
Manesh R Patel
Christopher M Kramer
Steven R Bailey
Alan S Brown
John U Doherty
Pamela S Douglas
Robert C Hendel
Bruce D Lindsay
James K Min
Leslee J Shaw
Raymond F Stainback
L Samuel Wann
Michael J Wolk
Joseph M Allen

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The American College of Cardiology Foundation along with key specialty and subspecialty societies, conducted an appropriate use review of common clinical presentations for stable ischemic heart disease (SIHD) to consider use of stress testing and anatomic diagnostic procedures. This document reflects an updating of the prior Appropriate Use Criteria (AUC) published for radionuclide imaging (RNI), stress echocardiography (Echo), calcium scoring, coronary computed tomography angiography (CCTA), stress cardiac magnetic resonance (CMR), and invasive coronary angiography for SIHD. This is in keeping with the commitment to revise and refine the AUC on a frequent basis. A major innovation in this document is the rating of tests side by side for the same indication. The side-by-side rating removes any concerns about differences in indication or interpretation stemming from prior use of separate documents for each test. However, the ratings were explicitly not competitive rankings due to the limited availability of comparative evidence, patient variability, and range of capabilities available in any given local setting. The indications for this review are limited to the detection and risk assessment of SIHD and were drawn from common applications or anticipated uses, as well as from current clinical practice guidelines. Eighty clinical scenarios were developed by a writing committee and scored by a separate rating panel on a scale of 1-9, to designate Appropriate, May Be Appropriate, or Rarely Appropriate use following a modified Delphi process following the recently updated AUC development methodology. The use of some modalities of testing in the initial evaluation of patients with symptoms representing ischemic equivalents, newly diagnosed heart failure, arrhythmias, and syncope was generally found to be Appropriate or May Be Appropriate, except in cases where low pre-test probability or low risk limited the benefit of most testing except exercise electrocardiogram (ECG). Testing for the evaluation of new or worsening symptoms following a prior test or procedure was found to be Appropriate. In addition, testing was found to be Appropriate or May Be Appropriate for patients within 90 days of an abnormal or uncertain prior result. Pre-operative testing was rated Appropriate or May Be Appropriate only for patients who had poor functional capacity and were undergoing vascular or intermediate risk surgery with 1 or more clinical risk factors or an organ transplant. The exercise ECG was suggested as an Appropriate test for cardiac rehabilitation clearance or for exercise prescription purposes. Testing in asymptomatic patients was generally found to be Rarely Appropriate, except for calcium scoring and exercise testing in intermediate and high-risk individuals and either stress or anatomic imaging in higher-risk individuals, which were all rated as May Be Appropriate. All modalities of follow-up testing after a prior test or percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) within 2 years and within 5 years after coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) in the absence of new symptoms were rated Rarely Appropriate. Pre-operative testing for patients with good functional capacity, prior normal testing within 1 year, or prior to low-risk surgery also were found to be Rarely Appropriate. Imaging for an exercise prescription or prior to the initiation of cardiac rehabilitation was Rarely Appropriate except for cardiac rehabilitation clearance for heart failure patients.

Indexed as

AdultAgedAlgorithmsAmerican Heart AssociationCardiologyCoronary AngiographyDecision MakingExerciseFemaleHumansMagnetic Resonance ImagingMaleMiddle AgedMyocardial IschemiaMyocardiumPatient Safety

Identifiers

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.