Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31487121›Full record

SynthesisESC heart failure2019

Diagnostic performance of imaging investigations in detecting and differentiating cardiac amyloidosis: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Jack Brownrigg, Massimiliano Lorenzini, Matthew Lumley, Perry Elliott

Open access · goldAbstract readComparative StudyMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in ESC heart failure, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 60 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
60citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
4.4field-weighted citation impact, top 5% 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.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

60 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 113 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. 2025 Update Consensus ofActa Cardiologica Sinica · 2025
    Article
  19. Review
  20. Review
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

4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Jack BrownriggPfizer Limited, Walton Oaks, Dorking Road, Walton-on-the-Hill, Tadworth, Surrey, KT20 7NS, UK.
Massimiliano LorenziniBarts Heart Centre, St Bartholomew's Hospital, London, UK.
Matthew LumleyPfizer Limited, Walton Oaks, Dorking Road, Walton-on-the-Hill, Tadworth, Surrey, KT20 7NS, UK.
Perry ElliottBarts Heart Centre, St Bartholomew's Hospital, London, UK.
Pfizer (United Kingdom) · GBSt Bartholomew's Hospital · GB

Funding

Pfizer
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

aimsThe study aims to systematically assess the diagnostic performance of cardiac magnetic resonance (CMR) and nuclear scintigraphy (index tests) for the diagnosis and differentiation of subtypes of cardiac amyloidosis. METHODS AND

resultsMEDLINE and Embase electronic databases were searched for studies evaluating the diagnostic performance of CMR or nuclear scintigraphy in detecting cardiac amyloidosis and subsequently in differentiating transthyretin amyloidosis (ATTR) from immunoglobulin light-chain (AL) amyloidosis. In this meta-analysis, histopathological examination of tissue from endomyocardial biopsy (EMB) or extra-cardiac organs were reference standards. Pooled sensitivity, specificity, positive likelihood ratio, and negative likelihood ratio were calculated, and a random effects meta-analysis was used to estimate diagnostic odds ratios. Methodological quality was assessed using a validated instrument. Of the 2947 studies identified, 27 met the criteria for inclusion. Sensitivity and specificity of CMR in diagnosing cardiac amyloidosis was 85.7% and 92.0% against EMB reference and 78.9% and 93.9% with any organ histology reference. Corresponding sensitivity and specificity of nuclear scintigraphy was 88.4% and 87.2% against EMB reference and 82.0% and 98.8% with histology from any organ. CMR was unable to reliably differentiate ATTR from AL amyloidosis (sensitivity 28.1-99.0% and specificity 11.0-60.0%). Sensitivity and specificity of nuclear scintigraphy in the differentiation of ATTR from AL amyloidosis ranged from 90.9% to 91.5% and from 88.6% to 97.1%. Pooled negative likelihood ratio and positive likelihood ratio for scintigraphy in this setting were 0.1 and 8, with EMB reference standard. Study quality assessed by QUADAS-2 was generally poor with evidence of bias.

conclusionsCardiac magnetic resonance is a useful test for diagnosing cardiac amyloidosis but is not reliable in further classifying the disease. Nuclear scintigraphy offers strong diagnostic performance in both the detection of cardiac amyloidosis and differentiating ATTR from AL amyloidosis. Our findings support the use of both imaging modalities in a non-invasive diagnostic algorithm that also tests for the presence of monoclonal protein.

Indexed as

Amyloid Neuropathies, FamilialAmyloidosisBiopsyDiagnosis, DifferentialHeart DiseasesHeart FailureHumansImmunoglobulin Light-chain AmyloidosisMagnetic Resonance ImagingPrevalenceRadionuclide ImagingSensitivity and SpecificityCardiac amyloidosisCardiac magnetic resonanceHeart failureLight-chain amyloidosisNuclear scintigraphyTransthyretin amyloid cardiomyopathy

Identifiers

PMID31487121
PMCPMC6816075
OpenAlexW2971568089

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.