Trial reportTherapeutic advances in cardiovascular disease
Inter- and intra-core laboratory variability in the quantitative coronary angiography analysis for drug-eluting stent treatment and follow up.
Trial report in Therapeutic advances in cardiovascular disease. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
aimTo evaluate inter-core laboratory variability of quantitative coronary angiography (QCA) parameters in comparison with intra-core laboratory variability in a randomized controlled trial evaluating drug-eluting stents.
methodsA total of 50 patients with 62 coronary lesions were analyzed by four analysis experts belonging to an Angiographic Core Laboratory (ACL: 1 expert) and a Cardiovascular Imaging Core Laboratory (CICL: 3 experts). QCA was based on the same standard operating procedure, but selections of projection and cine frames were at the discretion of each analyst. Inter- and intra-core laboratory variabilities were evaluated by accuracy, precision, Bland Altman analysis, and coefficient of variation.
resultsPre-MLD (minimal lumen diameter) was significantly smaller in results from ACL than those from all CICL experts. Number of analyzed projections did not affect pre-MLD results. Acute gain was larger in ACL than in CICL2. No significant difference was observed in late loss and loss index between inter-core laboratories. Agreement between core labs in the Bland-Altman analysis for each QCA parameter was as follows (mean difference, 95% limits of agreement): pre-MLD (-0.32, -0.74 to 0.10), stent MLD (0.08, -0.28 to 0.44), acute gain (0.22, -0.44 to 0.88), and late loss (-0.07, -0.69 to 0.55). Agreement between analysts in CICL (mean difference, 95% limits of agreement) was: pre MLD (-0.03, -0.37 to 0.31), stent MLD (0.15, -0.15 to 0.45), acute gain (0.05, -0.45 to 0.55), and late loss (0.04, -0.52 to 0.60). The widest limits of agreement among three analyses were shown in both analyses. Width of limited agreement in the intra-core laboratory analysis tended to be smaller than the inter-core laboratory analysis with these parameters. Coefficient of variation tended to be larger in lesion length (LL), acute gain, late loss, and loss index in inter- and in intra- core laboratory comparisons.
conclusionInter-core laboratory QCA variability in late loss and loss index analysis could be similar to intra-core laboratory variability, but more strict alignment between core laboratories would be necessary for initial procedural data analysis.
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.