ArticleInterventional medicine & applied science2014
Comparative cath-lab assessment of coronary stenosis by radiology technician, junior and senior interventional cardiologist in patients treated with coronary angioplasty.
Article in Interventional medicine & applied science, 2014. 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, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- Major adverse cardiac events and drug-coated balloon size in coronary interventions.Anatolian journal of cardiology · 2018Article
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 at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundExact quantification of plaque extension during coronary angioplasty (PCI) usually falls on interventional cardiologist (IC). Quantitative coronary stenosis assessment (QCA) may be possibly committed to the radiology technician (RT), who usually supports cath-lab nurse and IC during PCI. We therefore sought to investigate the reliability of QCA performed by RT in comparison with IC.
methodsForty-four consecutive patients with acute coronary syndrome underwent PCI; target coronary vessel size beneath target coronary lesion (S) and target coronary lesion length (L) were assessed by the RT, junior IC (JIC), and senior IC (SIC) and then compared. SIC evaluation, which determined the final stent selection for coronary stenting, was considered as a reference benchmark.
resultsRT performance with QCA support in assessing target vessel size and target lesion length was not significantly different from SIC (r = 0.46, p < 0.01; r = 0.64, p < 0.001, respectively) as well as JIC (r = 0.79, r = 0.75, p < 0.001, respectively). JIC performance was significantly better than RT in assessing target vessel size (p < 0.05), while not significant when assessing target lesion length.
conclusionsRT may reliably assess target lesion by using adequate QCA software in the cath-lab in case of PCI; RT performance does not differ from SIC.
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.