ArticleClinical cardiology2021
Performance of the coronary calcium score in an outpatient chest pain clinic and strategies for risk stratification.
Article in Clinical cardiology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 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
9 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 10 citations in OpenAlex.
- Comparative systematic review of coronary artery calcium scoring guidelines: CSANZ versus ACC/AHA and ESC recommendations.Internal medicine journal · 2026Pooled it
- Association of High Sensitivity C-Reactive Protein/Albumin Ratio for Coronary Artery Disease in a Southern Arab Peninsula Population: A Cross-Sectional Study Among Yemeni Adults.Vascular health and risk management · 2025Article
- The association of carotid plaque burden and composition and the coronary artery calcium score in intermediate cardiovascular risk patients.The international journal of cardiovascular imaging · 2024Article
- Review
- Predictive values of coronary artery calcium and arterial stiffness for long-term cardiovascular events in patients with stable coronary artery disease.Clinical cardiology · 2023Article
- Is a novel diagnostic pathway for cardiology outpatient clinics in Singapore lower cost than existing practice: a cost modelling study.BMJ open · 2022Article
- Relationship between c-reactive protein to albumin ratio and coronary artery calcium score and CAD-RADS scores with coronary computed tomography angiography.Turkish journal of medical sciences · 2021Article
- Clinical implication of coronary artery calcium score.Clinical cardiology · 2021Article
- Performance of the coronary calcium score in an outpatient chest pain clinic and strategies for risk stratification.Clinical cardiology · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundCoronary artery calcium score (CAC) is an objective marker of atherosclerosis. The primary aim is to assess CAC as a risk classifier in stable coronary artery disease (CAD). HYPOTHESIS: CAC improves CAD risk prediction, compared to conventional risk scoring, even in the absence of cardiovascular risk factor inputs.
methodsOutpatients presenting to a cardiology clinic (n = 3518) were divided into two cohorts: derivation (n = 2344 patients) and validation (n = 1174 patients). Adding logarithmic transformation of CAC, we built two logistic regression models: Model 1 with chest pain history and risk factors and Model 2 including chest pain history only without risk factors simulating patients with undiagnosed comorbidities. The CAD I Consortium Score (CCS) was the conventional reference risk score used. The primary outcome was the presence of coronary artery disease defined as any epicardial artery stenosis≥50% on CT coronary angiogram.
resultsArea under curve (AUC) of CCS in our validation cohort was 0.80. The AUC of Models 1 and 2 were significantly improved at 0.88 (95%CI 0.86-0.91) and 0.87 (95%CI 0.84-0.90), respectively. Integrated discriminant improvement was >15% for both models. At a pre-specified cut-off of ≤10% for excluding coronary artery disease, the sensitivity and specificity were 89.3% and 74.7% for Model 1, and 88.1% and 71.8% for Model 2.
conclusionCAC helps improve risk classification in patients with chest pain, even in the absence of prior risk factor screening.
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.