ArticleJapanese journal of radiology2014
Reproducibility of coronary artery calcium measurements using 0.8-mm-thickness 256-slice coronary CT.
Article in Japanese journal of radiology, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Assessing Agreement When Agreement Is Hard to Assess-The Agatston Score for Coronary Calcification.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Review
- A manifesto for cardiovascular imaging: addressing the human factor.European heart journal. Cardiovascular Imaging · 2017Review
- Association of Inter-Arm Systolic Blood Pressure Difference with Coronary Atherosclerotic Disease Burden Using Calcium Scoring.Yonsei medical journal · 2017Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeCoronary artery calcium (CAC) measurement has been utilized as an important indicator of coronary artery disease and predictor of cardiovascular risk. The reproducibility of CAC measurements makes it clinically useful for the assessment of progression and regression of coronary atherosclerosis. This study assessed the reproducibility of the Agatston CAC score among patients undergoing 256-slice multidetector computed tomography (MDCT) scans using 0.8-mm slice thickness. MATERIALS AND
methodsOne hundred four patients (aged 62.8 ± 9.0 years, 56.7 % males) with CAC scores >0 on 256-slice MDCT underwent additional MDCT imaging at 2-week intervals. The CAC score was quantified using the Agatston score, which was measured independently by two radiologists.
resultsThe variability between observers and MDCT scan measurements was determined by the mean value of absolute and percentage differences: inter-scan/inter-observer (14.45 ± 21.84, 12.51 ± 21.84 %), intra-scan/intra-observer (1.75 ± 5.85, 1.26 ± 3.69 %), intra-scan/inter-observer (3.3 ± 9.1, 4.8 ± 21.3 %), and inter-scan/intra-observer (13.45 ± 20.7, 10.04 ± 10.46 %).
conclusionReproducibility in CAC measurements using the 0.8-mm-thickness 256-slice MDCT showed low inter-scan/inter-observer variability. Therefore, this CT imaging has potential to be used in prospective, longitudinal CAC assessments.
Indexed as
Identifiers
25277791What 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.