ReviewClinical cardiology2014
Recent improvement in coronary computed tomography angiography diagnostic accuracy.
Review in Clinical cardiology, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Comparison of coronary CT angiography and invasive coronary angiography results.Irish journal of medical science · 2024Article
- Predictive value of systemic inflammatory response index (SIRI) for complex coronary artery disease occurrence in patients presenting with angina equivalent symptoms.Cardiology journal · 2024Article
- Evaluation of Image Quality for High Heart Rates for Coronary Computed Tomographic Angiography with Advancement in CT Technology: The CONVERGE Registry.Journal of cardiovascular development and disease · 2023Article
- Initial exploration of coronary stent image subtraction using dual-layer spectral CT.European radiology · 2019Article
- Accuracy and clinical outcomes of coronary CT angiography for patients with suspected coronary artery disease: a single-centre study in Singapore.Singapore medical journal · 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Although invasive coronary angiography has been the gold standard for evaluating coronary artery disease (CAD), it should not be routinely performed as an initial test to assess CAD in subjects with suspected CAD by the recent guidelines, due to cost, invasiveness, and measurable risk. Coronary computed tomography angiography (CCTA) is a rapidly growing, noninvasive imaging modality that developed quickly over the last decade, and its role for evaluation of CAD becomes of great promise with high diagnostic accuracy. Although artifact issues have created some challenges for CCTA, recent advances-including the introduction of more detectors, leading to broader coverage, and faster and higher-definition scanners-allow improved precision and fewer uninterpretable studies. This review article summarizes the current key literature regarding the diagnostic accuracy of CCTA in native coronary arteries, stents, coronary artery bypass grafts, lesions with high calcification, and the functional assessment of CAD.
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.