ArticleSingapore medical journal2018
Accuracy and clinical outcomes of coronary CT angiography for patients with suspected coronary artery disease: a single-centre study in Singapore.
Article in Singapore medical journal, 2018. 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.
- Evaluating artificial intelligence-driven stress echocardiography analysis system (EASE study): A mixed method study.BMJ open · 2024Article
- Revascularization Options for Left Main Disease: What Clinicians Need to Know.Current atherosclerosis reports · 2023Review
- Characteristics and key differences between patient populations receiving imaging modalities for coronary artery disease diagnosis in the US.BMC cardiovascular disorders · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionThis study aimed to assess the accuracy and outcomes of coronary computed tomography angiography (CCTA) performed in a regional hospital in Singapore.
methodsThe Changi General Hospital CCTA database was retrospectively analysed over a 24-month period. Electronic hospital records, catheter coronary angiography (CCA) and CCTA electronic databases were used to gather data on major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) and CCA results. CCTA findings were deemed positive if coronary artery stenosis ≥ 50% was reported or if the stenosis was classified as moderate or severe. CCA findings were considered positive if coronary artery stenosis ≥ 50% was reported.
resultsThe database query returned 679 patients who had undergone CCTA for the evaluation of suspected coronary artery disease. Of the 101 patients in the per-patient accuracy analysis group, there were six true negatives, one false negative, 81 true positives and 13 false positives, resulting in a negative predictive value of 85.7% and positive predictive value of 86.2%. The mean age of the study sample was 53 ± 13 years and 255 (37.6%) patients were female. Mean duration of patient follow-up was 360 days. Of the 513 negative CCTA patients, none developed MACE during the follow-up period, and of the 164 positive CCTA patients, 19 (11.6%) developed MACE (p < 0.001).
conclusionAnalysis of CCTA studies suggested accuracy and outcomes that were consistent with published clinical data. There was a one-year MACE-free warranty period following negative CCTA findings.
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.