ReviewHeart failure reviews2021
The role of cardiac magnetic resonance in diagnosis of cardiac sarcoidosis.
Review in Heart failure reviews, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 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
8 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- Position Statement on Multimodal Cardiac Imaging in Patients with Systemic Diseases - 2026.Arquivos brasileiros de cardiologia · 2026Article
- Beyond the Biopsy: Imaging Frontiers in Cardiac Sarcoidosis.Cardiology research and practice · 2026Review
- Exploring the latest advances inAmerican journal of nuclear medicine and molecular imaging · 2024Review
- Imaging of metabolic and overload disorders in tissues and organs.Japanese journal of radiology · 2023Review
- Cardiac sarcoidosis: the role of cardiac MRI andThe British journal of cardiology · 2023Article
- The Role of Multimodality Imaging in Cardiac Sarcoidosis.Korean circulation journal · 2021Review
- Cardiac sarcoidosis: Two case reports.Clinical case reports · 2021Article
- Current State and Future Directions of Multimodality Imaging in Cardiac Sarcoidosis.Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 2021Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 4 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Sarcoidosis is a systemic granulomatous disease with a high prevalence of cardiac involvement in autopsic studies. Cardiac sarcoidosis is associated with increased cardiovascular morbidity and mortality. Endomyocardial biopsy is a specific technique, but unfortunately not sensitive enough. Non-invasive cardiac imaging has an important role in the evaluation of patients with suspected or confirmed cardiac sarcoidosis. Echocardiography remains the first choice imaging technique because of its availability and low cost. However, this method could not provide tissue characterization or evaluation of disease activity level. 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose (FDG) positron emission tomography (PET) has essential role in diagnosis and monitoring of patients with suspected or confirmed cardiac sarcoidosis. Nevertheless, more recently it has been shown that cardiac magnetic resonance (CMR) might provide useful information about cardiac sarcoidosis. Hybrid imaging approach that includes PET-CMR and PET-CT is particularly interesting for diagnosis, assessment of activity and follow-up in these patients. Diagnostic algorithm in sarcoidosis patients should include clinical data, hybrid imaging and biopsy. Use of different CMR sequences such as cine imaging, late gadolinium enhancement, T1 and T2 mapping, as well as strain imaging, may significantly contribute to diagnosis and monitoring of patients with cardiac sarcoidosis. However, validation of these techniques and particularly T1 and T2 mapping in sarcoidosis patients in large studies is necessary. This review aimed to summarize current knowledge about clinical usefulness of CMR in patients with cardiac sarcoidosis.
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.