ReviewCurrent cardiology reviews2020
Imaging in Suspected Cardiac Sarcoidosis: A Diagnostic Challenge.
Review in Current cardiology reviews, 2020. 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, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- Incidence of positive genetic testing among patients referred for cardiac positron emission tomography.Journal of medical genetics · 2025Article
- Comparison of LGE quantitation methods in cardiac sarcoidosis to predict clinical outcomes.The international journal of cardiovascular imaging · 2023Article
- Arrhythmogenic Inflammatory Cardiomyopathy in Autoimmune Rheumatic Diseases: A Challenge for Cardio-Rheumatology.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2019Review
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 at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Cardiac Sarcoidosis (CS) represents a unique diagnostic dilemma. Guidelines have been recently revised to reflect the established role of sophisticated imaging techniques. Trans-thoracic Echocardiography (TTE) is widely adopted for initial screening of CS. Contemporary TTE techniques could enhance detection of subclinical Left Ventricular (LV) dysfunction, particularly LV global longitudinal strain assessment which predicts event-free survival (meta-analysis of 5 studies, hazard ratio 1.28, 95% confidence interval 1.18-1.37, p < 0.0001). However, despite the wide availability of TTE, it has limited sensitivity and specificity for CS diagnosis. Cardiac Magnetic resonance Imaging (CMR) is a crucial diagnostic modality for suspected CS. Presence of late gadolinium enhancement signifies myocardial scar and enables risk stratification. Fluorodeoxyglucose Positron Emission Tomography (FDG-PET) coupled with myocardial perfusion imaging can identify active CS and guide immunosuppressant therapy. Gallium scintigraphy may be considered although FDG-PET is often preferred. While CMR and FDG-PET provide complementary information in CS evaluation, current guidelines do not recommend which imaging modalities are essential in suspected CS and if so, which modality should be performed first. The utility of hybrid imaging combining both advanced imaging modalities in a single scan is currently being explored, although not yet widely available. In view of recent, significant advances in cardiac imaging techniques, this review aims to discuss changes in guidelines for CS diagnosis, the role of various cardiac imaging modalities and the future direction in CS.
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.