ArticleData in brief2018
Data on diagnostic performance of stress perfusion cardiac magnetic resonance for coronary artery disease detection at the vessel level.
Article in Data in brief, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Stress perfusion cardiac magnetic resonance (CMR) has been proposed as an important gatekeeper for invasive coronary angiography (ICA) and percutaneous coronary interventions (PCI) in patients evaluated for possible coronary artery disease (CAD) (Fihn et al., 2012; Montalescot et al., 2013) [1], [2]. Several meta-analyses have evaluated the accuracy of stress perfusion CMR to diagnose CAD at the vessel level (Danad et al., 2017; Dai et al., 2016; Jiang et al., 2016; Takx et al., 2015; Li et al., 2015; Desai and Jha, 2013; Jaarsma et al. 2012; Hamon et al., 2010; Nandalur et al. 2007) [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11]. However, they included in the same analysis studies with different definitions of significant CAD (i.e. fractional flow reserve [FFR] < 0.75 and < 0.80 or coronary stenosis ≥ 50% and ≥ 70%), magnetic field strength (1.5 or 3 Tesla [T]), and study protocol (integration or not of late gadolinium enhancement [LGE] into stress perfusion protocol). Data of 34 studies (6091 arteries) have been pooled with the aim of analyzing the accuracy of stress perfusion CMR for the diagnosis of ischemic heart disease at the vessel level according to different definitions of significant CAD, magnetic field strength and study protocol (Arnold et al., 2010; Bettencourt et al., 2013; Cheng et al., 2007; Chiribiri et al., 2013; Cury et al., 2006; De Mello et al., 2012; Donati et al., 2010; Ebersberger et al., 2013; Gebker et al., 2008; Greulich et al., 2015; Hussain et al., 2016; Ishida et al., 2005, 2003; Kamiya et al., 2014; Kitagawa et al., 2008; Klein et al., 2008; Klem et al., 2006; Klumpp et al., 2010; Krittayaphong et al., 2009; Lockie et al., 2011; Ma et al., 2012; Merkle et al., 2007; Meyer et al., 2008; Mor-Avi et al., 2008; Pan et al., 2015; Papanastasiou et al., 2016; Pons Lladó et al., 2004; Sakuma et al., 2005; Salerno et al., 2014; Scheffel et al., 2010; van Werkhoven et al., 2010; Walcher et al., 2013; Watkins et al., 2009; Yun et al., 2015) [12-45]. This article describes data related article titled "Diagnostic Performance of Stress Perfusion Cardiac Magnetic Resonance for the Detection of Coronary Artery Disease" (Kiaos et al., submitted for publication) [46].
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.