Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25117643›Full record

ArticleThe international journal of cardiovascular imaging2014

Computer-aided CT coronary artery stenosis detection: comparison with human reading and quantitative coronary angiography.

Matthias Rief, Anisha Kranz, Lisa Hartmann, Robert Roehle, Michael Laule, Marc Dewey

Abstract readComparative StudyEvaluation Study
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in The international journal of cardiovascular imaging, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed
1.1field-weighted citation impact, top 22% 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

8 citing papers in PubMed, 15 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Observational
  7. Plaque assessment by coronary CT.The international journal of cardiovascular imaging · 2016
    Review
  8. Cardiovascular imaging 2014 in the International Journal of Cardiovascular Imaging.The international journal of cardiovascular imaging · 2015
    Review
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 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Matthias RiefDepartment of Radiology, Charité, Medical School, Humboldt-University and Free University, Charitéplatz 1, 10117, Berlin, Germany, matthias.rief@charite.de.
Anisha Kranz
Lisa Hartmann
Robert Roehle
Michael Laule
Marc Dewey
Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin · DEHumboldt State University · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

To evaluate computer-aided stenosis detection for computed tomography coronary angiography (CTA) in comparison with human reading and conventional coronary angiography (CCA) as the reference standard. 50 patients underwent CTA and CCA and out of these 44 were evaluable for computer-aided stenosis detection. The diagnostic performance of the software and of human reading were compared and quantitative coronary angiography (QCA) served as the reference standard for the detection of significant stenosis (>50 %). Overall, three readers with high (reader 1), intermediate (reader 2) and low (reader 3) experience in cardiac CT imaging performed the manual CTA evaluation on a commercially available workstation, whereas the automated software processed the datasets without any human interaction. The prevalence of coronary artery disease was 41 % (18/44) and QCA indicated significant stenosis (>50 %) in 33 coronary vessels. The automated software accurately diagnosed 18 individuals with significant coronary artery disease (CAD), and correctly ruled out CAD in 10 patients. In summary the sensitivity of computer-aided detection was 100 %/94 % (per-patient/per-vessel) and the specificity was 38 %/70 %, the positive predictive value (PPV) was 53 %/42 % and the negative predictive value (NPV) was 100 %/98 %. In comparison, reader 1-3 showed per-patient sensitivities of 100/94/89 %, specificities of 73/69/50 %, PPVs of 72/68/55 % and NPVs of 100/95/87 %. Computer-aided detection yields a high NPV that is comparable to more experienced human readers. However, PPV is rather low and in the range of an unexperienced reader.

Indexed as

Multidetector Computed TomographyRadiographic Image Interpretation, Computer-AssistedAgedCoronary AngiographyCoronary Artery DiseaseCoronary StenosisCoronary VesselsFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedObserver VariationPredictive Value of TestsReproducibility of ResultsRetrospective StudiesSeverity of Illness Index

Identifiers

PMID25117643
OpenAlexW2080435569

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.