The 2016 National Institute for Health and Care Excellence guidelines for chest pain: better outcomes with cardiac CT.

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.

1. X-ray velocimetry in dynamic imaging: a systematic overview of approaches.Polish journal of radiology · 2025
   Review
2. Coronary calcifications as assessed on routine non-gated chest CT; a gatekeeper to tailor downstream additional imaging in patients with stable chest pain.International journal of cardiology. Heart & vasculature · 2024
   Article
3. Inter-observer agreement and image quality of model-based algorithm applied to the Coronary Artery Disease-Reporting and Data System score.Insights into imaging · 2022
   Article
4. Does stress echocardiography still have a role in the rapid access chest pain clinic post NICE CG95?Echo research and practice · 2019
   Article

Corrections and comments

• Comment on
  Diagnostic and prognostic benefits of computed tomography coronary angiography using the 2016 National Institute for Health and Care Excellence guidance within a randomised trial.2018

Authors and funding

1 author.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

Abstract

PubMed holds no abstract for this paper.

Indexed as