ArticleThe British journal of radiology2016
Diagnostic accuracy of standard axial 64-slice chest CT compared to cardiac MRI for the detection of cardiomyopathies.
Article in The British journal of radiology, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- Opportunistic screening at chest computed tomography: literature review of cardiovascular significance of incidental findings.Cardiovascular diagnosis and therapy · 2023Review
- Artificial intelligence can detect left ventricular dilatation on contrast-enhanced thoracic computer tomography relative to cardiac magnetic resonance imaging.The British journal of radiology · 2022Article
- Going beyond Cardiomegaly: Evaluation of Cardiac Chamber Enlargement at Non-Electrocardiographically Gated Multidetector CT: Current Techniques, Limitations, and Clinical Implications.Radiology. Cardiothoracic imaging · 2019Review
- Artificial intelligence in cardiovascular CT: Current status and future implications.Journal of cardiovascular computed tomographyReview
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo assess the diagnostic accuracy of standard axial chest CT compared with cardiac MRI for cardiomyopathies.
methodsThe standard axial 64-slice chest CTs of 49 patients with cardiomyopathies and 27 controls were blindly assessed for the presence of a cardiomyopathy by two independent readers. Qualitative and quantitative analysis included assessment of: (i) interatrial septal thickness, (ii) left atrial diameter, (iii) myocardial hypertrophy, thinning or fat, (iv) myocardial and papillary muscle calcification, (v) papillary muscle thickness, (vi) calcified coronary artery segments, (vii) left ventricular (LV) diameter, (viii) interventricular septal thickness and (ix) right ventricular diameters. Cardiac MRI was the gold standard.
resultsThere were 21 (42.9%) dilated, 16 (32.7%) hypertrophic, 8 (16.3%) ischaemic and 4 other (8.2%) (LV non-compaction × 2, amyloid, idiopathic restrictive) patients with cardiomyopathies. An LV diameter of 47 mm, interventricular septal thickness of 14 mm and coronary artery/papillary muscle calcification on axial chest CT best distinguished dilated, hypertrophic and ischaemic cardiomyopathies from controls, respectively; kappa = 0.45 (moderate interobserver agreement). The sensitivity (95% confidence interval), specificity, positive- and negative-predictive values (95% confidence interval) and diagnostic accuracy of chest CT in diagnosing cardiomyopathies were 68% (52-83), 100%, 100%, 66% (55-85) and 80%, respectively.
conclusionCardiomyopathies may be detected on standard chest CT with good sensitivity and high specificity. ADVANCES IN KNOWLEDGE: It is useful to assess for an underlying cardiomyopathy on standard chest CT, especially in a patient with unexplained dyspnoea.
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.