ReviewCardiovascular diagnosis and therapy2016
Prediction of cardiovascular outcomes by imaging coronary atherosclerosis.
Review in Cardiovascular diagnosis and therapy, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Long-term prognostic value of contemporary stress echocardiography in patients with suspected or known coronary artery disease: systematic review and meta-analysis.Heart (British Cardiac Society) · 2024Pooled it
- Histopathology-Based Deep-Learning Predicts Atherosclerotic Lesions in Intravascular Imaging.Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 2021Article
- Coronary Atherosclerosis Imaging.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2020Review
- Utility of Carotid Intima-Media Thickness as an Auxiliary Vascular Parameter of Structural Alteration in Ulcerative Colitis.Inflammatory intestinal diseases · 2019Article
- Preclinical atherosclerosis in patients with inflammatory bowel diseases: a case-control study.Annals of translational medicine · 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Over the last two decades, several invasive and non-invasive coronary atherosclerosis imaging modalities have emerged as predictors of cardiovascular outcomes in at-risk population. These modalities have demonstrated independent or incremental prognostic information over existing/standard risk stratification schemes, such as the Framingham risk score (FRS), by identifying characteristics of coronary artery diseases (CADs). In this review, we begin with discussing the importance of pre-test probability and quality of outcome measure, followed by specific findings of each modality in relation to prognosis. We focused on both short and long term prognostic aspects of coronary computed tomography (CT) (including coronary calcium score and coronary angiography) and magnetic resonance imaging as non-invasive tools, as well as invasive modalities including intravascular ultrasound (IVUS), optical coherence tomography (OCT), near infrared spectroscopy and Angioscopy.
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.