ArticleCoronary artery disease2019
Impact of sex-specific differences in calculating the pretest probability of obstructive coronary artery disease in symptomatic patients: a coronary computed tomographic angiography study.
Article in Coronary artery disease, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Pooled it
- Sex Differences in Two International Guidelines for Assessing Obstructive Coronary Artery Disease in Symptomatic Outpatients by Coronary Computed Tomographic Angiography.Reviews in cardiovascular medicine · 2023Article
- Comparison of Risk Assessment Strategies for Patients with Diabetes Mellitus and Stable Chest Pain: A Coronary Computed Tomography Angiography Study.Journal of diabetes research · 2022Article
- Predictive Added Value of Selected Plasma Lipids to a Re-estimated Minimal Risk Tool.Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 2021Article
- Gender-Related Differences in Chest Pain Syndromes in the Frontiers in CV Medicine Special Issue: Sex & Gender in CV Medicine.Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 2021Review
- Factors influencing left ventricular ejection fraction in patients with coronary microvascular disease and obstructive coronary artery disease.BMC research notes · 2020Observational
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesLittle is known about the impact of sex-specific differences in calculating the pretest probability (PTP) of obstructive coronary artery disease. We sought to determine whether the calculation of PTP differ by sex in symptomatic patients referred to coronary computed tomographic angiography (CCTA). PATIENTS AND
methodsThe characteristics of 5777 men and women who underwent CCTA were compared. For each patient, PTP was calculated according to the updated Diamond-Forrester method (UDFM) and the Duke clinical score (DCS), respectively. Follow-up clinical data were also recorded. Area under the receiver operating characteristic curve, integrated discrimination improvement, net reclassification improvement, and the Hosmer-Lemeshow goodness-of-fit statistic were used to assess the models' performance.
resultsThe area under the receiver operating characteristic curve of UDFM and DCS showed little difference in men (0.782 vs. 0.785, P=0.4708) and women (0.668 vs. 0.654, P=0.1255), and calibration of neither model was satisfactory. Compared with UDFM, DCS showed positive integrated discrimination improvement (10% in men, P<0.0001, and 8% in women, P<0.0001, respectively), net reclassification improvement (12.17% in men, P<0.0001, and 27.19% in women, P<0.0001, respectively), and obviously reduced unnecessary noninvasive testing for women with negative CCTA.
conclusionAlthough the performance of neither model was favorable, DCS offered a more accurate calculation of PTP than UDFM and application of DCS instead of UDFM would result in a significant decrease in inappropriate testing, especially in women.
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.