ReviewCurrent cardiology reports2018
Cardiac CT in the Emergency Department: Contrasting Evidence from Registries and Randomized Controlled Trials.
Review in Current cardiology reports, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
purpose of reviewTo compare outcomes between registries and randomized controlled trials of coronary computed tomographic angiography (CCTA)-based versus standard of care approaches to the initial evaluation of patients with acute chest pain. RECENT
findingsRandomized trials have demonstrated CCTA to be a safe and efficient tool for triage of low- to intermediate-risk patients presenting to the emergency department with chest pain. Recent studies demonstrate heterogeneous result using different standard of care approaches for evaluation of hard endpoints in comparison with standard evaluation. Also, there has been continued concern for increase in subsequent testing after coronary CTA. Although CCTA improves detection of coronary artery disease, it is uncertain if it will bring improvement of long-term health outcomes at this point of time. Careful analysis of the previous results and further investigation will be required to validate evaluation of hard endpoints.
Indexed as
Identifiers
29520449What 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.