ReviewCurrent cardiology reports2014
Diagnostic performance and comparative cost-effectiveness of non-invasive imaging tests in patients presenting with chronic stable chest pain with suspected coronary artery disease: a systematic overview.
Review in Current cardiology reports, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Several non-invasive imaging techniques are currently in use for the diagnostic workup of adult patients with stable chest pain suspected of having coronary artery disease (CAD). In this paper, we present a systematic overview of the evidence on diagnostic performance and comparative cost-effectiveness of new modalities in comparison to established technologies. A literature search for English language studies from 2009 to 2013 was performed, and two investigators independently extracted data on patient and study characteristics. The reviewed published evidence on diagnostic performance and cost-effectiveness support a strategy of CTCA as a rule out (gatekeeper) test of CAD in low- to intermediate-risk patients since it has excellent diagnostic performance and as initial imaging test is cost-effective under different willingness-to-pay thresholds. More cost-effectiveness research is needed in order to define the role and choice of cardiac stress imaging tests.
Indexed as
Identifiers
25301401What 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.