ArticleInsights into imaging2016
Lights and shadows of cardiac magnetic resonance imaging in acute myocarditis.
Article in Insights into imaging, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 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
15 citing papers in PubMed, 33 citations in OpenAlex.
- Cardiac MRI monitoring in acute myocarditis: predicting outcomes through serial imaging.European radiology · 2026Article
- Novel Echocardiographic Index for Risk Stratification of Ventricular Arrhythmias and Mortality Based on Right Ventricular Function.Journal of arrhythmia · 2026Article
- Myocarditis in anti-synthetase syndrome: clinical features and diagnostic modalities.Rheumatology (Oxford, England) · 2024Article
- Cardiovascular magnetic resonance (CMR) and positron emission tomography (PET) imaging in the diagnosis and follow-up of patients with acute myocarditis and chronic inflammatory cardiomyopathy : A review paper with practical recommendations on behalf of the European Society of Cardiovascular Radiology (ESCR).The international journal of cardiovascular imaging · 2023Review
- Infarct-like versus Non-Infarct-like Clinical Presentation of Acute Myocarditis: Comparison of Cardiac Magnetic Resonance (CMR) Findings.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
- Review
- Heart Involvement in Systemic Sclerosis: the Role of Magnetic Resonance Imaging.Clinical reviews in allergy & immunology · 2023Review
- Advanced cardiac imaging in athlete's heart: unravelling the grey zone between physiologic adaptation and pathology.La Radiologia medica · 2021Review
- Use of the new Lake Louise Criteria improves CMR detection of atypical forms of acute myocarditis.The international journal of cardiovascular imaging · 2021Article
- The perpetual sword of Damocles: Cardiac involvement in systemic sclerosis and the role of non-invasive imaging modalities in medical decision making.European journal of rheumatology · 2020Review
- Cardiovascular magnetic resonance in myocardial infarction with non-obstructive coronary arteries patients: A review.World journal of cardiology · 2020Review
- Aortic valvular imaging with cardiovascular magnetic resonance: seeking for comprehensiveness.The British journal of radiology · 2019Review
- Two-dimensional and three-dimensional cardiac magnetic resonance feature-tracking myocardial strain analysis in acute myocarditis patients with preserved ejection fraction.The international journal of cardiovascular imaging · 2019Article
- Assessment of acute myocarditis by cardiac magnetic resonance imaging: Comparison of qualitative and quantitative analysis methods.Journal of nuclear cardiology : official publication of the American Society of Nuclear Cardiology · 2019Article
- Clinical and magnetic resonance evolution of "infarct-like" myocarditis.La Radiologia medica · 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
18 authors at 12 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
unlabelledCardiac magnetic resonance (CMR) is considered a primary tool for the diagnosis of acute myocarditis, due to its unique potential for non-invasive identification of the various hallmarks of the inflammatory response, with relevant impact on patient management and prognosis. Nonetheless, a marked variation in sensitivity and negative predictive value has been reported in the literature, reflecting the intrinsic drawbacks of current diagnostic criteria, which are based mainly on the use of conventional CMR pulse sequences. As a consequence, a negative exam cannot reliably exclude the diagnosis, especially in patients who do not present an infarct-like onset of disease. The introduction of new-generation mapping techniques further widened CMR potentials, allowing quantification of tissue changes and opening new avenues for non-invasive workup of patients with inflammatory myocardial disease. MAIN MESSAGES: • CMR sensitivity varies in AM, reflecting its clinical polymorphism and the intrinsic drawbacks of LLc. • Semiquantitative approaches such as EGEr or T2 ratio have limited accuracy in diffuse disease forms. • T1 mapping allows objective quantification of inflammation, with no need to normalize measurements. • A revised protocol including T2-STIR, T1 mapping and LGE could be hypothesized to improve sensitivity.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.