Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25068028›Full record

ArticleWorld journal of cardiology2014

Is cardiac MRI an effective test for arrhythmogenic right ventricular cardiomyopathy diagnosis?

Santhi Chellamuthu, Alyson M Smith, Steven M Thomas, Catherine Hill, Peter W G Brown, Abdallah Al-Mohammad

Open access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in World journal of cardiology, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
1.2field-weighted citation impact, top 19% of its field
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

4 citing papers in PubMed, 11 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. 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

6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Santhi ChellamuthuSanthi Chellamuthu, Steven M Thomas, Catherine Hill, Peter W G Brown, Department of Radiology, Sheffield Teaching Hospitals NHS trust, Northern General Hospital, Sheffield S5 7AU, United Kingdom.
Alyson M SmithSanthi Chellamuthu, Steven M Thomas, Catherine Hill, Peter W G Brown, Department of Radiology, Sheffield Teaching Hospitals NHS trust, Northern General Hospital, Sheffield S5 7AU, United Kingdom.
Steven M ThomasSanthi Chellamuthu, Steven M Thomas, Catherine Hill, Peter W G Brown, Department of Radiology, Sheffield Teaching Hospitals NHS trust, Northern General Hospital, Sheffield S5 7AU, United Kingdom.
Catherine HillSanthi Chellamuthu, Steven M Thomas, Catherine Hill, Peter W G Brown, Department of Radiology, Sheffield Teaching Hospitals NHS trust, Northern General Hospital, Sheffield S5 7AU, United Kingdom.
Peter W G BrownSanthi Chellamuthu, Steven M Thomas, Catherine Hill, Peter W G Brown, Department of Radiology, Sheffield Teaching Hospitals NHS trust, Northern General Hospital, Sheffield S5 7AU, United Kingdom.
Abdallah Al-MohammadSanthi Chellamuthu, Steven M Thomas, Catherine Hill, Peter W G Brown, Department of Radiology, Sheffield Teaching Hospitals NHS trust, Northern General Hospital, Sheffield S5 7AU, United Kingdom.
Northern General Hospital · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

aimTo evaluate the referrals with suspected arrhythmogenic right ventricular cardiomyopathy (ARVC) and compare cardiac MR (cMR) findings against clinical diagnosis.

methodsA retrospective analysis of 114 (age range 16 to 83, males 55% and females 45%) patients referred for cMR with a suspected diagnosis of ARVC between May 2006 and February 2010 was performed after obtaining institutional approval for service evaluation. Reasons for referral including clinical symptoms and family history of sudden death, electrocardiogram and echo abnormalities, cMR findings, final clinical diagnosis and information about clinical management were obtained. The results of cMR were classified as major, minor, non-specific or negative depending on both functional and tissue characterisation and the cMR results were compared against the final clinical diagnosis.

resultsThe most common reasons for referral included arrhythmias (30%) and a family history of sudden death (20%). Of the total cohort of 114 patients: 4 patients (4%) had major cMR findings for ARVC, 13 patients (11%) had minor cMR findings, 2 patients had non-specific cMR findings relating to the right ventricle and 95 patients had a negative cMR. Of the 4 patients who had major cMR findings, 3 (75%) had a positive clinical diagnosis. In contrast, of the 13 patients who had minor cMR findings, only 2 (15%) had a positive clinical diagnosis. Out of the 95 negative patients, clinical details were available for 81 patients and none of them had ARVC. Excluding the 14 patients with no clinical data and final diagnosis, the sensitivity of the test was 100%, specificity 87%, positive predictive value 29% and the negative predictive value 100%.

conclusionCMR is a useful tool for ARVC evaluation because of the high negative predictive value as the outcome has a significant impact on the clinical decision-making.

Indexed as

ArrhythmiasArrhythmogenic right ventricular cardiomyopathyCardiomyopathyDiagnosisImplantable cardiac defibrillatorMagnetic resonance imagingRight ventricular

Identifiers

PMID25068028
PMCPMC4110616
OpenAlexW2079604988

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.