ArticleThe international journal of cardiovascular imaging2017
Two-by-two cross-over study to evaluate agreement between versions of a quantitative coronary analysis system (QAngio XA).
Article in The international journal of cardiovascular imaging, 2017. 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.
- Clinical expert consensus document on quantitative coronary angiography from the Japanese Association of Cardiovascular Intervention and Therapeutics.Cardiovascular intervention and therapeutics · 2020Article
- Cardiovascular imaging 2017 in the International Journal of Cardiovascular Imaging.The international journal of cardiovascular imaging · 2018Article
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The current version (ver. 7.3) of the popular quantitative coronary analysis system QAngio XA (Medis Medical Imaging System BV, Leiden, the Netherlands) is widely used without evaluating the agreement between the current and older versions in relation to a change of algorithms. The purpose of this study was to assess the equivalence of averages between QAngio XA versions 7.3 and 6.0. Based on the calculated sample size, angiographic images of 100 patients who underwent percutaneous coronary intervention of a single target lesion were randomly selected from two published studies (OUCH-TL: 154 lesions; OUCH-PRO: 160 lesions). The primary endpoint was the minimum lumen diameter (MLD), and the secondary endpoints were the reference diameter (RefD) and length of the stenotic lesion (LL). Two independent analysts measured the same frame using both previous and current versions of QAngio XA. Version-order for each lesion was randomly determined per coronary locations targeted. Data were analysed by using a mixed model that includes random lesion effects and fixed rater effects and reading-order effects. A Bland-Altman plot of parameters showed no large differences between the versions. Differences in parameters were estimated by the mixed model, and the 95% confidence interval of the MLD, RefD, and LL estimates was from -0.045 to -0.0001 mm, from -0.040 to 0.006 mm, and from -1.08 to 0.46 mm, respectively, compared with the predefined non-inferiority margin of ±0.2 mm. Measurements of MLD and RefD using QAngio XA showed no major systematic differences between versions.
Indexed as
Identifiers
28110432What 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.