Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31250324›Full record

GuidelineJournal of nuclear cardiology : official publication of the American Society of Nuclear Cardiology2019

ACC/AATS/AHA/ASE/ASNC/HRS/SCAI/SCCT/SCMR/STS 2019 Appropriate Use Criteria for Multimodality Imaging in the Assessment of Cardiac Structure and Function in Nonvalvular Heart Disease : A Report of the American College of Cardiology Appropriate Use Criteria Task Force, American Association for Thoracic Surgery, American Heart Association, American Society of Echocardiography, American Society of Nuclear Cardiology, Heart Rhythm Society, Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions, Society of Cardiovascular Computed Tomography, Society for Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance, and the Society of Thoracic Surgeons.

John U Doherty, Smadar Kort, Roxana Mehran, Paul Schoenhagen, Prem Soman, Rating Panel Members, Appropriate Use Criteria Task Force

Registry-linked trialAbstract readPractice Guideline
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Guideline in Journal of nuclear cardiology : official publication of the American Society of Nuclear Cardiology, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT07339007 (Observational Study to Validate a Family Physician Echocardiography Training Programme), which is not on this map. Cited by 14 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
14citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
3.2field-weighted citation impact, top 7% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

NCT07339007 enrolling by invitationnot on this mapstarted 2023, after this paper: background citation

Observational Study to Validate a Family Physician Echocardiography Training Programme

Typeobservational_patient_registrySponsorSocietat Catalana de Medicina Familiar i Comunitària, Assoc. (CAMFiC)Ran2023 to 2027Enrolled500ConditionsHeart Failure, Valvular Heart Diseases, Atrial Fibrillation (AF), Arterial HypertensionArmsCohort of GPs: Training program, Cohort of patients
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

14 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 26 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Diagnosis and staging of cardiac masses: additional value of CMR withEuropean journal of nuclear medicine and molecular imaging · 2022
    Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Echocardiography in Pandemic: Front-Line Perspective, Expanding Role of Ultrasound, and Ethics of Resource Allocation.Journal of the American Society of Echocardiography : official publication of the American Society of Echocardiography · 2020
    Review
  14. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors at 5 institutions in 1 country.

John U DohertyAmerican College of Cardiology, Washington, DC, USA. ascholtz@acc.org.
Smadar KortAmerican Society of Echocardiography, Morrisville, NC, USA.
Roxana MehranSociety for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions, Washington, DC, USA.
Paul SchoenhagenSociety of Cardiovascular Computed Tomography, Vienna, VA, USA.
Prem SomanAmerican Society of Nuclear Cardiology, Bethesda, MD, USA.
Rating Panel Members
Appropriate Use Criteria Task Force
American College of Cardiology · USAmerican Nuclear Society · USAmerican Society of Echocardiography · USJapan Society · USSociety for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

This document is the second of 2 companion appropriate use criteria (AUC) documents developed by the American College of Cardiology, American Association for Thoracic Surgery, American Heart Association, American Society of Echocardiography, American Society of Nuclear Cardiology, Heart Rhythm Society, Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions, Society of Cardiovascular Computed Tomography, Society for Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance, and Society of Thoracic Surgeons. The first document (J Am Coll Cardiol 2017;70:1647-1672) addresses the evaluation and use of multimodality imaging in the diagnosis and management of valvular heart disease, whereas this document addresses this topic with regard to structural (nonvalvular) heart disease. While dealing with different subjects, the 2 documents do share a common structure and feature some clinical overlap. The goal of the companion AUC documents is to provide a comprehensive resource for multimodality imaging in the context of structural and valvular heart disease, encompassing multiple imaging modalities.Using standardized methodology, the clinical scenarios (indications) were developed by a diverse writing group to represent patient presentations encountered in everyday practice and included common applications and anticipated uses. Where appropriate, the scenarios were developed on the basis of the most current American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Clinical Practice Guidelines.A separate, independent rating panel scored the 102 clinical scenarios in this document on a scale of 1 to 9. Scores of 7 to 9 indicate that a modality is considered appropriate for the clinical scenario presented. Midrange scores of 4 to 6 indicate that a modality may be appropriate for the clinical scenario, and scores of 1 to 3 indicate that a modality is considered rarely appropriate for the clinical scenario.The primary objective of the AUC is to provide a framework for the assessment of these scenarios by practices that will improve and standardize physician decision making. AUC publications reflect an ongoing effort by the American College of Cardiology to critically and systematically create, review, and categorize clinical situations in which diagnostic tests and procedures are utilized by physicians caring for patients with cardiovascular diseases. The process is based on the current understanding of the technical capabilities of the imaging modalities examined.

Indexed as

Cardiac Imaging TechniquesMultimodal ImagingPatient SelectionHeart DiseasesHumansUnited StatesACC Appropriate Use Criteriaimagingmultimodalitystructural heart disease

Identifiers

PMID31250324
OpenAlexW2955300869

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

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.