Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31511792›Full record

ReviewCardiology research and practice2019

The Evolving View of Coronary Artery Calcium: A Personalized Shared Decision-Making Tool in Primary Prevention.

Omar Dzaye, Cara Reiter-Brennan, Albert D Osei, Olusola A Orimoloye, S M Iftekhar Uddin, Mohammadhassan Mirbolouk, Michael J Blaha

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Cardiology research and practice, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Combined evaluation of CAC score and myocardial perfusion imaging in patients at risk of cardiovascular disease: where are we and what do the data say.Journal of nuclear cardiology : official publication of the American Society of Nuclear Cardiology · 2023
    Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. 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.

Omar DzayeJohns Hopkins Ciccarone Center for Prevention of Heart Disease, Baltimore, MD, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9483-3510
Cara Reiter-BrennanJohns Hopkins Ciccarone Center for Prevention of Heart Disease, Baltimore, MD, USA.
Albert D OseiJohns Hopkins Ciccarone Center for Prevention of Heart Disease, Baltimore, MD, USA.
Olusola A OrimoloyeJohns Hopkins Ciccarone Center for Prevention of Heart Disease, Baltimore, MD, USA.
S M Iftekhar UddinJohns Hopkins Ciccarone Center for Prevention of Heart Disease, Baltimore, MD, USA.
Mohammadhassan MirboloukJohns Hopkins Ciccarone Center for Prevention of Heart Disease, Baltimore, MD, USA.
Michael J BlahaJohns Hopkins Ciccarone Center for Prevention of Heart Disease, Baltimore, MD, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The 2018 American Heart Association and American College of Cardiology (AHA/ACC) cholesterol management guideline considers current evidence on coronary artery calcium (CAC) testing while incorporating learnings from previous guidelines. More than any previous guideline update, this set encourages CAC testing to facilitate shared decision making and to individualize treatment plans. An important novelty is further separation of risk groups. Specifically, the current prevention guideline recommends CAC testing for primary atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) prevention among asymptomatic patients in borderline and intermediate risk groups (5-7.5% and 7.5-20% 10-year ASCVD risk). This additional sub-classification reflects the uncertainty of treatment strategies for patients broadly considered to be "intermediate risk," as treatment recommendations for high and low risk groups are well established. The 2018 guidelines, for the first time, clearly recognize the significance of a CAC score of zero, where intensive statin therapy is likely not beneficial and not routinely recommended in selected patients. Lifestyle modification should be the focus in patients with CAC = 0. In this article, we review the recent AHA/ACC cholesterol management guideline and contextualize the transition of CAC testing to a guideline-endorsed decision aid for borderline-to-intermediate risk patients who seek more definitive risk assessment as part of a clinician-patient discussion. CAC testing can reduce low-value treatment and focus primary prevention therapy on those most likely to benefit.

Identifiers

PMID31511792
PMCPMC6714321

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.