Observational studyJournal of the American Heart Association2020
Clinical Effectiveness of Cardiac Noninvasive Diagnostic Testing in Outpatients Evaluated for Stable Coronary Artery Disease.
Observational study in Journal of the American Heart Association, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 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
10 citing papers in PubMed, 15 citations in OpenAlex.
- Article
- Risk Stratification of Acute Chest Pain in Patients With High-Sensitivity Troponin T Below the 99th Percentile: A Long-Term Cohort Study Assessing the Incremental Value of Necrosis and Non-necrosis Biomarkers to Clinical Risk Scores.Journal of the American Heart Association · 2025Observational
- Machine learning-based integration of pericoronary adipose tissue and clinical risk factors for cardiovascular risk prediction in type 2 diabetes: a retrospective cohort study.European journal of medical research · 2025Article
- Coronary computed tomography angiography in primary care patients with chest pain or dyspnea - a cross-sectional study.BMC primary care · 2025Article
- Impact of Zero Coronary Artery Calcium Scoring on Downstream Cardiac Testing and Cardiac Outcomes Compared With No Testing.CJC open · 2025Article
- Efficacy of Diagnostic Testing of Suspected Coronary Artery Disease: A Contemporary Review.Cardiology · 2025Review
- Nationwide Trends of Gatekeeper to Invasive Coronary Angiography in Suspected Coronary Artery Disease.Korean circulation journal · 2022Article
- Predictive Added Value of Selected Plasma Lipids to a Re-estimated Minimal Risk Tool.Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 2021Article
- Cardiac Noninvasive Diagnostic Testing for Outpatient Chest Pain: Rethinking "Less Is More".Journal of the American Heart Association · 2020Article
- Clinical Effectiveness of Cardiac Noninvasive Diagnostic Testing in Outpatients Evaluated for Stable Coronary Artery Disease.Journal of the American Heart Association · 2020Observational
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
7 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
Background Despite more than 4 million cardiac noninvasive diagnostic tests (NIT) being performed annually for stable coronary artery disease in the United States, it is unclear whether they are associated with downstream improvements in outcomes when compared with no testing. We sought to determine whether NIT was associated with reduced downstream major adverse cardiovascular events when compared with not testing. Methods and Results We conducted a population-based study of ≈1.5 million patients undergoing chest pain evaluation in Ontario, Canada. Patients were categorized into NIT and no-testing groups. Cause-specific proportional hazards models were used to compare the rate of major adverse cardiovascular events (composite outcome of unstable angina, acute myocardial infarction or cardiovascular mortality and each constituent) between the 2 groups after adjusting for clinically relevant covariates. The rate of the composite outcome was ≈25% lower for patients undergoing noninvasive testing (hazard ratio [HR], 0.77; 95% CI, 0.75-0.79). The benefits of testing were consistent for all 3 constituents of the composite; unstable angina (HR, 0.87; 95% CI, 0.82-0.93 for the NIT versus the no-testing group), myocardial infarction (HR, 0.83; 95% CI, 0.79-0.86 for the NIT versus the no-testing group) and cardiovascular mortality (HR, 0.68; 95% CI, 0.65-0.72 for the NIT versus the no-testing group). Conclusions Our large population-based study reports an ≈25% reduction in major adverse cardiovascular events that was independently associated with NIT in outpatients being evaluated for stable angina. This study demonstrates the prognostic importance of NIT versus no testing on the health of contemporary populations.
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.