ArticleExperimental and therapeutic medicine2019
Computed tomography coronary angiography vs. standard diagnostic procedure for the diagnosis of angina due to coronary heart disease: A cross-sectional study.
Article in Experimental and therapeutic medicine, 2019. 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, 11 citations in OpenAlex.
- Article
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 at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Patients with episodes of angina are likely to experience future cardiac events and benefit from a revascularization procedure. Conventional invasive coronary angiography is a well-established and reliable method for the detection of angina, but it has a risk of complications and false-negative diagnosis. The objective of the present study was to assess the utility of computed tomography coronary angiography (CTCA) in the diagnosis of angina due to coronary heart disease. A total of 2,426 patients with chest pain referred to the rapid access chest pain clinic of Beijing Anzhen Hospital, Capital Medical University (Beijing, P.R. China) between 18 January 2016 and 1 December 2017 were included in the present cross-sectional study. All patients were subjected to evaluation of symptoms, blood tests, 12-lead electrocardiogram (ECG), exercise ECG, coronary artery calcium scoring and CTCA. The cost of the diagnosis of angina was determined for each individual method. In total, 776 (32%) and 1,420 (58%) of patients were identified to be abnormal on clinical assessment and CTCA, respectively. Exercise ECG results were not correlated with the interpretation of CTCA (r=0.8511). The working area of the angina due to coronary heart disease detected at one time by the different diagnostic procedures was in the order of ECG <clinical assessment <exercise ECG <coronary artery calcium scoring <CTCA. The cost of the 'standard diagnostic procedure (clinical assessments, ECG, exercise ECG)' was 15,452±806 ¥/patient and that of CTCA was 12,546±612 ¥/patient. CTCA had a higher sensitivity for the diagnosis of angina due to coronary heart disease and the cost was lower than that of the 'standard diagnostic procedure' (level of evidence: 3). The current study was registered at the Research Registry on 11th January 2016 (trial no. researchregistry4232).
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.