Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25764088›Full record

Trial reportEuropean radiology2015

Patient satisfaction with coronary CT angiography, myocardial CT perfusion, myocardial perfusion MRI, SPECT myocardial perfusion imaging and conventional coronary angiography.

S Feger, M Rief, E Zimmermann, F Richter, R Roehle, M Dewey, E Schönenberger

Open access · greenAbstract readMulticenter StudyRandomized Controlled Trial
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Trial report in European radiology, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 18 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
18citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
4.3field-weighted citation impact, top 6% 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

18 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 35 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Strengths and weaknesses of alternative noninvasive imaging approaches for microvascular ischemia.Journal of nuclear cardiology : official publication of the American Society of Nuclear Cardiology · 2023
    Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Observational
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Update on Computed Tomography Myocardial Perfusion Imaging.Current cardiovascular imaging reports · 2016
    Article
  18. Emergency Department Patients' Perceptions of Radiation From Medical Imaging.WMJ : official publication of the State Medical Society of Wisconsin · 2016
    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

7 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.

S FegerDepartment of Radiology, Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin Campus Mitte, Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, Freie Universität Berlin, Berlin, Germany.
M Rief
E Zimmermann
F Richter
R Roehle
M Dewey
E Schönenberger
Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin · DECharité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin · DEFreie Universität Berlin · DEMedizinische Hochschule Hannover · DE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesTo evaluate patient acceptance of noninvasive imaging tests for detection of coronary artery disease (CAD), including single-photon emission computed tomography myocardial perfusion imaging (SPECT-MPI), stress perfusion magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), coronary CT angiography (CTA) in combination with CT myocardial stress perfusion (CTP), and conventional coronary angiography (CCA).

methodsIntraindividual comparison of perception of 48 patients from the CORE320 multicentre multinational study who underwent rest and stress SPECT-MPI with a technetium-based tracer, combined CTA and CTP (both with contrast agent, CTP with adenosine), MRI, and CCA. The analysis was performed by using a validated questionnaire.

resultsPatients had significantly more concern prior to CCA than before CTA/CTP (p < 0.001). CTA/CTP was also rated as more comfortable than SPECT-MPI (p = 0.001). Overall satisfaction with CT was superior to that of MRI (p = 0.007). More patients preferred CT (46%; p < 0.001) as a future diagnostic test. Regarding combined CTA/CTP, CTP was characterised by higher pain levels and an increased frequency of angina pectoris during the examination (p < 0.001). Subgroup analysis showed a higher degree of pain during SPECT-MPI with adenosine stress compared to physical exercise (p = 0.016).

conclusionsAll noninvasive cardiac imaging tests are well accepted by patients, with CT being the preferred examination. KEY POINTS: • A variety of cardiac imaging tests is available without known patient preference • CTA/CTP shows a lower degree of concern than conventional coronary angiography • CTA/CTP shows higher overall satisfaction compared to stress perfusion magnetic resonance imaging • CTA/CTP is rated as more comfortable than SPECT-MPI • CTA/CTP is the preferred cardiac imaging test.

Indexed as

Patient SatisfactionAdenosineContrast MediaCoronary AngiographyCoronary Artery DiseaseFemaleHumansMagnetic Resonance AngiographyMaleMiddle AgedMyocardial Perfusion ImagingProspective StudiesTomography, Emission-Computed, Single-PhotonTomography, X-Ray ComputedVasodilator AgentsAdenosineContrast MediaVasodilator Agents

Identifiers

PMID25764088
OpenAlexW2082892925

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.