SynthesisPloS one2014
Direct comparison of cardiovascular magnetic resonance and single-photon emission computed tomography for detection of coronary artery disease: a meta-analysis.
Synthesis in PloS one, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Umbrella review and multivariate meta-analysis of diagnostic test accuracy studies on hybrid non-invasive imaging for coronary artery disease.Journal of nuclear cardiology : official publication of the American Society of Nuclear Cardiology · 2020Pooled it
- The Diagnosis of Chronic Coronary Heart Disease.Deutsches Arzteblatt international · 2017Pooled it
- Review of Cardiovascular Imaging in the Journal of Nuclear Cardiology in 2016. Part 1 of 2: Positron Emission Tomography, Computed Tomography and Magnetic Resonance.Journal of nuclear cardiology : official publication of the American Society of Nuclear Cardiology · 2017Review
- Functional imaging for chest pain in the emergency room: To do or not to do?Journal of nuclear cardiology : official publication of the American Society of Nuclear Cardiology · 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo use direct comparative studies or randomised controlled trials to compare the accuracy of cardiac magnetic resonance (CMR) and single-photon emission computed tomography (SPECT) for the detection of obstructive coronary artery disease (CAD). MATERIALS AND
methodsVarious databases were searched for original articles published prior to June 2013. Studies were selected that performed both CMR and SPECT in the same or randomised patients to detect CAD and that presented sufficient data to allow construction of contingency tables. For each study, the true-positive, false-positive, true-negative, and false-negative values were extracted or derived, and 2 × 2 contingency tables were constructed. To reduce heterogeneity, the meta-analysis was carried out in two parts: (1) coronary territory-based analysis and (2) patient-based analysis.
results10 studies (5 studies based on patient, 4 studies based on coronary territory, and 1 study based on both) were included in the meta-analysis with a total of 1727 patients. The methodological quality was moderate. For part (1), the summary estimates were as follows: for CMR based on patient-a sensitivity of 0.79 (95% confidence interval: 0.72-0.84) and a specificity of 0.75 (0.65-0.83); for SPECT based on patient-a sensitivity of 0.70 (0.59-0.79) and a specificity of 0.76 (0.66-0.83). For part (2), the summary estimates for CMR based on coronary territory were a sensitivity of 0.80 (0.73-0.85) and a specificity of 0.87 (0.81-0.91), and the summary estimates for SPECT based on coronary territory were a sensitivity of 0.67 (0.60-0.72) and a specificity of 0.80 (0.75-0.84).
conclusionsCompared with SPECT, CMR is more sensitive to detect CAD on a per-patient basis. Nonetheless, large scale, well-designed trials are necessary to assess its clinical value on a per-coronary territory basis.
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.