ArticleThe American journal of cardiology2016
Impact of Stress Cardiac Magnetic Resonance Imaging on Clinical Care.
Article in The American journal of cardiology, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Article
- Myocardial Stress Perfusion MRI Using Regadenoson: A Weight-based Approach in Infants and Young Children.Radiology. Cardiothoracic imaging · 2019Article
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.
Funding
Abstract
Given the rising costs of imaging, there is increasing pressure to provide evidence for direct additive impact on clinical care. Appropriate use criteria (AUC) were developed to optimize test-patient selection and are increasingly used by payers to assess reimbursement. However, these criteria were created by expert consensus with limited systematic validation. The aims of this study were therefore to determine (1) rates of active clinical change resulting from stress cardiovascular magnetic resonance (CMR) imaging and (2) whether the AUC can predict these changes. We prospectively enrolled 350 consecutive outpatients referred for stress CMR. Categories of "active changes in clinical care" due to stress CMR were predefined. Appropriateness was classified according to the 2013 AUC. Multivariate logistic regression analysis was used to identify factors independently associated with active change. Overall, stress CMR led to an active change in clinical care in about 70% of patients. Rates of change in clinical care did not vary significantly across AUC categories (p = 0.767). In a multivariate model adjusting for clinical variables and AUC, only ischemia (odds ratio [OR] 6.896, 95% CI 2.637 to 18.032, p <0.001), known coronary artery disease (OR 0.300, 95% CI 0.161 to 0.559, p <0.001), and age (OR 0.977, 95% CI 0.954 to 1.000, p = 0.050) independently predicted significant clinical change. In conclusion, stress CMR made a significant impact on clinical management, resulting in active change in clinical care in about 70% of patients. AUC categories were not an independent predictor of clinical change. Clinical change was independently associated with the presence of ischemia, absence of known coronary artery disease, and younger age.
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.