ArticleJournal of nuclear cardiology : official publication of the American Society of Nuclear Cardiology2019
Comparing two methods for determining appropriateness of myocardial perfusion imaging: Criteria from the American College of Cardiology Foundation and the American College of Radiology.
Article in Journal of nuclear cardiology : official publication of the American Society of Nuclear Cardiology, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Review of cardiovascular imaging in the Journal of Nuclear Cardiology 2019: Single-photon emission computed tomography.Journal of nuclear cardiology : official publication of the American Society of Nuclear Cardiology · 2020Review
- More or less appropriate: The new rule of law for cardiac imaging.Journal of nuclear cardiology : official publication of the American Society of Nuclear Cardiology · 2019Article
- What's accepted is not always appropriate!Journal of nuclear cardiology : official publication of the American Society of Nuclear Cardiology · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAppropriate use criteria (AUC) developed by the American College of Cardiology Foundation and the appropriateness criteria (AC) developed by the American College of Radiology (ACR) are two existing methods of rating appropriateness of myocardial perfusion imaging (MPI). One study found poor agreement of ratings between the two methods. However, using the most contemporary AUC from 2013, it is unknown if poor agreement still exists.
methodsRetrospective cohort investigation comparing patients undergoing nuclear MPI between June 2011 and September 2014. The appropriateness category was determined based on the 2013 AUC (Appropriate, may be appropriate, rarely appropriate) and the 2010 ACR AC (usually appropriate, maybe appropriate, usually not appropriate). The primary outcome was the degree of the agreement between the two methods.
resultsThe kappa coefficient between ACR AC and AUC was 0.32, P < 0.0001, indicating poor agreement; 40 (8%) patients were classified by the AUC but could not be classified by the ACR AC.
conclusionThe two methods for rating the appropriateness of MPI have poor agreement; a potential for disagreement between providers and payers if only one method is used.
Indexed as
Identifiers
28660600What 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.