ArticleKorean journal of radiology
Comparison of the Diagnostic Accuracies of 1.5T and 3T Stress Myocardial Perfusion Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance for Detecting Significant Coronary Artery Disease.
Article in Korean journal of radiology. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.
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
8 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Diagnostic and Prognostic Value of Stress Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance Imaging in Patients With Known or Suspected Coronary Artery Disease: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.JAMA cardiology · 2023Pooled it
- Guidelines for Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance Imaging from the Korean Society of Cardiovascular Imaging-Part 3: Perfusion, Delayed Enhancement, and T1- and T2 Mapping.Korean journal of radiology · 2019Guideline
- Guideline for Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance Imaging from the Korean Society of Cardiovascular Imaging-Part 1: Standardized Protocol.Korean journal of radiology · 2019Guideline
- Artificial intelligence-assisted compressed sensing CINE enhances the workflow of cardiac magnetic resonance in challenging patients.World journal of cardiology · 2025Article
- Validation of Ultrasound for Quantification of Knee Meniscal Tissue: A Cadaveric Study.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Contemporary Role of Cardiac Magnetic Resonance in the Management of Patients with Suspected or Known Coronary Artery Disease.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2021Review
- Guidelines for Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance Imaging from the Korean Society of Cardiovascular Imaging-Part 2: Interpretation of Cine, Flow, and Angiography Data.Korean journal of radiology · 2019Review
- Myocardial Blood Flow Quantified by Low-Dose Dynamic CT Myocardial Perfusion Imaging Is Associated with Peak Troponin Level and Impaired Left Ventricle Function in Patients with ST-Elevated Myocardial Infarction.Korean journal of radiology · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: To compare the diagnostic performance of cardiovascular magnetic resonance (CMR) myocardial perfusion at 1.5- and 3-tesla (T) for detecting significant coronary artery disease (CAD), with invasive coronary angiography (ICA) as the reference method. Materials and Methods: We prospectively enrolled 281 patients (age 62.4 ± 8.3 years, 193 men) with suspected or known CAD who had undergone 1.5T or 3T CMR and ICA. Two independent radiologists interpreted perfusion defects. With ICA as the reference standard, the diagnostic performance of 1.5T and 3T CMR for identifying significant CAD (≥ 50% diameter reduction of the left main and ≥ 70% diameter reduction of other epicardial arteries) was determined. Results: No differences were observed in baseline characteristics or prevalence of CAD and old myocardial infarction (MI) using 1.5T (n = 135) or 3T (n = 146) systems. Sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values, and area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) for detecting significant CAD were similar between the 1.5T (84%, 64%, 74%, 76%, and 0.75 per patient and 68%, 83%, 66%, 84%, and 0.76 per vessel) and 3T (80%, 71%, 71%, 80%, and 0.76 per patient and 75%, 86%, 64%, 91%, and 0.81 per vessel) systems. In patients with multi-vessel CAD without old MI, the sensitivity, specificity, and AUC with 3T were greater than those with 1.5T on a per-vessel basis (71% vs. 36%, 92% vs. 69%, and 0.82 vs. 0.53, respectively). Conclusion: 3T CMR has similar diagnostic performance to 1.5T CMR in detecting significant CAD, except for higher diagnostic performance in patients with multi-vessel CAD without old MI.
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.