ArticleJournal of the Saudi Heart Association2020
Diagnostic Accuracy of Global Longitudinal Strain for Detecting Significant Coronary Artery Disease in Diabetic Patients without Regional Wall Motion Abnormality.
Article in Journal of the Saudi Heart Association, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 11 citations in OpenAlex.
- Improving Stress Echocardiography for Enhanced Detection of Left Main and Multivessel Coronary Artery Disease.CJC open · 2026Article
- sST2 levels and 3D speckle tracking as predictors of CAD severity in chronic coronary syndrome.The Egyptian heart journal : (EHJ) : official bulletin of the Egyptian Society of Cardiology · 2024Article
- Integrating Toe Brachial Index and longitudinal strain echocardiography for detecting coronary artery disease in patients with diabetic foot syndrome.International wound journal · 2024Article
- Predictive value of speckle tracking technique for coronary artery stenosis in patients with coronary heart disease.American journal of translational research · 2023Article
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 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
aimsSpeckle-tracking imaging is a novel method for assessing left ventricular (LV) function and ischemic changes. The aim of this prospective study was to assess the diagnostic accuracy of global longitudinal strain (GLS) and regional longitudinal strain (RLS) parameters at rest in comparison to stress echocardiography findings for detecting significant coronary artery disease (CAD) in patients with diabetes mellitus (DM).
methodsWe prospectively studied echocardiographic characteristics at rest with Speckle tracking echocardiography (2D STE) measures; then stress echocardiography and coronary angiography data in 34 diabetic patients without regional wall motion abnormality (RWMA) at rest. Patients were grouped according to coronary angiography and stress echocardiography results into two groups CAD (+) vs control group CAD (-).
resultsGLS at rest was lower in the CAD (+) group ((-14.2 % ± 3.1 vs -17.8 % ± 3.1 in the control group CAD (-), P=0.004). GLS at rest had the highest area under the ROC curve (AUC) (AUC 0.78, sensitivity 61%, specificity 91%,P=0.009) with the cut-off of -14.5% which is equal to predictive power of wall motion scoring index (WMSI) at peak stress to detect significant CAD (AUC=0.76 (95% CI 0.58-0.94, P= 0.016) with the cut-off value of 1.21).
conclusionsGlobal longitudinal strain at rest by STE showed excellent specificity (>90%) and good sensitivity (60%) for the diagnosis of severe CAD among the diabetic population with unknown CAD. This is the first study showing that GLS at rest with cutoff value at -14.5% had good and equal diagnostic accuracy as WMSI at peak stress to detect significant CAD among the diabetic population.
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.