ArticleCardiovascular diagnosis and therapy2020
Effectiveness of magnetocardiography to identify patients in need of coronary artery revascularization: a cross-sectional study.
Article in Cardiovascular diagnosis and therapy, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
8 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- Global trends and knowledge structure of cardiovascular magnetocardiography research: a bibliometric analysis.Frontiers in medicine · 2026Pooled it
- Establishment of magnetocardiogromics platform with reference range for normal magnetocardiogram.BMC medical imaging · 2025Article
- Advances of magnetocardiography in application of adult and fetal cardiac diseases.Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 2025Review
- Classification of current density vector map using transformer hybrid residual network.PloS one · 2025Article
- Utility of Magnetocardiography and Stress Speckle Tracking in Detection of Coronary Artery Disease.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- Accurate diagnosis of severe coronary stenosis based on resting magnetocardiography: a prospective, single-center, cross-sectional analysis.Journal of geriatric cardiology : JGC · 2024Article
- Magnetocardiography for the detection of myocardial ischemia.Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 2023Review
- Clinical magnetocardiography: the unshielded bet-past, present, and future.Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 2023Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPatients with angina-like symptoms need invasive or non-invasive angiography to determine whether revascularization is necessary. For patients in need of revascularization, undergoing coronary computed tomography angiography (CCTA) may delay the treatment of revascularization and increase exposure to contrast agents and radiation. The aim of this cross-sectional study was to accessed the effectiveness of magnetocardiography (MCG) to identify patients who should undergo coronary revascularization.
methodsA total of 203 patients who were suffering from angina-like symptoms and underwent percutaneous coronary angiography (PCA) between July 27, 2015 and April 10, 2017 at the 8th Medical Center of Chinese PLA General Hospital, were enrolled in this cross-sectional study. In all patients, 12-lead electrocardiography (ECG) and MCG test were performed before PCA. For each subject. The value at every single sampling point was extracted from T wave of each MCG channel in time sequence. Pearson's correlation coefficients were calculated for each two T-waves. A binary logistic regression diagnosis model of these coefficients was established to identify patients in need of revascularization.
resultsTen pairings of coefficients were entered into diagnostic regression model as covariates. The area under the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve (AUC) was 0.747 (95% CI: 0.680-0.815), and the asymptotic P value was less than 0.001. At the cut-off value of 0.55, the sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), negative predictive value (NPV), and accuracy were 72.9%, 65.9%, 74.8%, 63.6% and 69.9%, and the positive and negative post-test probabilities were 65.9% and 25.7%. The accuracy, sensitivity, specificity, PPV and NPV for 12-lead ECG were 67.0%, 62.7%, 63.5%, 70.5% and 55.1%, respectively. However, when those acute myocardial infarction (AMI) patients were ruled out from both groups, the MCG model had an accuracy of 68.2%, a sensitivity of 70.1%, a specificity of 66.3%, a PPV of 68.5% and an NPV of 67.9%. But, the accuracy, sensitivity, specificity, PPV and NPV for 12-lead ECG were 60.0%, 55.2%, 65.1%, 62.3% and 58.1%, respectively.
conclusionsPatients suffering from angina-like symptoms, with a logistic regression model value over 0.55, should be recommended for PCA.
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.