ReviewEuropean heart journal. Cardiovascular Imaging2017
A manifesto for cardiovascular imaging: addressing the human factor.
Review in European heart journal. Cardiovascular Imaging, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Reporting changes in right ventricular systolic pressure: insights from Classification and Regression Tree (CART) analysis.Echo research and practice · 2026Article
- Value assessment of artificial intelligence in medical imaging: a scoping review.BMC medical imaging · 2022Article
- Heart Rate Variability in the Perinatal Period: A Critical and Conceptual Review.Frontiers in neuroscience · 2020Review
- Left Ventricular Diastolic Dysfunction in Type 2 Diabetes-Progress and Perspectives.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2019Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Our use of modern cardiovascular imaging tools has not kept pace with their technological development. Diagnostic errors are common but seldom investigated systematically. Rather than more impressive pictures, our main goal should be more precise tests of function which we select because their appropriate use has therapeutic implications which in turn have a beneficial impact on morbidity or mortality. We should practise analytical thinking, use checklists to avoid diagnostic pitfalls, and apply strategies that will reduce biases and avoid overdiagnosis. We should develop normative databases, so that we can apply diagnostic algorithms that take account of variations with age and risk factors and that allow us to calculate pre-test probability and report the post-test probability of disease. We should report the imprecision of a test, or its confidence limits, so that reference change values can be considered in daily clinical practice. We should develop decision support tools to improve the quality and interpretation of diagnostic imaging, so that we choose the single best test irrespective of modality. New imaging tools should be evaluated rigorously, so that their diagnostic performance is established before they are widely disseminated; this should be a shared responsibility of manufacturers with clinicians, leading to cost-effective implementation. Trials should evaluate diagnostic strategies against independent reference criteria. We should exploit advances in machine learning to analyse digital data sets and identify those features that best predict prognosis or responses to treatment. Addressing these human factors will reap benefit for patients, while technological advances continue unpredictably.
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.