Trial reportDer Radiologe2020
[ISCHEMIA trial : Is coronary CT angiography the new gatekeeper?]
Trial report in Der Radiologe, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe ISCHEMIA trial systematically compared two major principles in the therapy of coronary artery disease (CAD): medical therapy versus revascularization in patients with a positive noninvasive test for myocardial ischemia. Specifically, it was designed to answer the question whether in patients with demonstrated ischemia, after ruling out left main stenosis by coronary computed tomography angiography (CTA), a routine interventional strategy in addition to optimal medical therapy would improve clinical outcome over an initial strategy of medical therapy alone.
conclusionOverall, this hypothesis could not be confirmed. In several ways, the trial yields interesting information in the field of cardiac imaging. First, a positive stress test result was not associated with a prognostic benefit of revascularization. Second, even though the evaluation of coronary CTA was not part of the protocol, the good outcome achieved by using coronary CTA as a "gatekeeper" during randomization supports the potential of coronary CTA as a diagnostic tool-both first- and second-line-when CAD is suspected. However, the trial also raises new questions in the field of cardiac imaging which will need to be addressed in future studies.
Indexed as
Identifiers
33211124What 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.