Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33434373›Full record

ArticleClinical cardiology2021

Performance of the coronary calcium score in an outpatient chest pain clinic and strategies for risk stratification.

Weiting Huang, Leon Ming Hsien Lim, Amirzeb S/O Aurangzeb, Cheney Jianlin Wong, Natalie Si Ya Koh, Zijuan Huang, Hooi Khee Teo, Terrance Siang Jin Chua, Swee Yaw Tan

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
1.2field-weighted citation impact, top 22% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

9 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 10 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Weiting HuangCardiology, National Heart Centre Singapore, 5 Hospital Drive, Singapore, 169609, Singapore.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3453-2374
Leon Ming Hsien LimYong Loo Lin School of Medicine, 10 Medical Drive, Singapore, 117597, Singapore.
Amirzeb S/O AurangzebYong Loo Lin School of Medicine, 10 Medical Drive, Singapore, 117597, Singapore.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3536-9145
Cheney Jianlin WongCardiology, National Heart Centre Singapore, 5 Hospital Drive, Singapore, 169609, Singapore.
Natalie Si Ya KohCardiology, National Heart Centre Singapore, 5 Hospital Drive, Singapore, 169609, Singapore.
Zijuan HuangCardiology, National Heart Centre Singapore, 5 Hospital Drive, Singapore, 169609, Singapore.
Hooi Khee TeoCardiology, National Heart Centre Singapore, 5 Hospital Drive, Singapore, 169609, Singapore.
Terrance Siang Jin ChuaCardiology, National Heart Centre Singapore, 5 Hospital Drive, Singapore, 169609, Singapore.
Swee Yaw TanCardiology, National Heart Centre Singapore, 5 Hospital Drive, Singapore, 169609, Singapore.
National Heart Centre Singapore · SGNational University of Singapore · SG

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

CalciumCoronary Artery DiseaseChest PainCoronary AngiographyHumansOutpatientsPain ClinicsPredictive Value of TestsRisk AssessmentRisk FactorsCalciumchest paincoronary artery calciumcoronary artery diseaserisk score

Identifiers

PMID33434373
PMCPMC7852173
OpenAlexW3119398454

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.