ArticleHeliyon2021
The diagnostic value of non-contrast magnetic resonance coronary angiography in the assessment of coronary artery disease: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
Article in Heliyon, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed, 12 citations in OpenAlex.
- Visualization of coronary small branch at ultra-high field 5T Noncontrast Dixon Whole-Heart Coronary MR Angiography: compared with 3T MRI.BMC medical imaging · 2026Article
- Comparison of Non-Contrast Coronary MRA Image Quality at 5T and 3T Based on the SCCT Segmental Model: A Technical Feasibility Study in Healthy Volunteers.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Article
- Accelerated 3D whole-heart non-contrast-enhanced mDIXON coronary MR angiography using deep learning-constrained compressed sensing reconstruction.Insights into imaging · 2024Article
- Dataset for Automatic Region-based Coronary Artery Disease Diagnostics Using X-Ray Angiography Images.Scientific data · 2024Article
- Feasibility of 3.0 T balanced fast field echo non-contrast-enhanced whole-heart coronary magnetic resonance angiography.Cardiovascular diagnosis and therapy · 2023Article
- 3D whole-heart noncontrast coronary MR angiography based on compressed SENSE technology: a comparative study of conventional SENSE sequence and coronary computed tomography angiography.Insights into imaging · 2023Article
- A cross-sectional study on coronary artery disease diagnosis in patients with peripheral artery disease.Journal of interventional medicine · 2022Article
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
purposeThe current literature reports a wide range of diagnostic accuracy of non-contrast magnetic resonance coronary angiography (NC-MRCA) for the assessment of coronary artery disease (CAD). We aimed to compare the clinical effectiveness of NC-MRCA with that of invasive coronary angiography (ICA) in patients with suspected CAD using a systematic review and meta-analysis.
methodsTwo investigators independently extracted 36 published manuscripts between 2010 and 2019. Databases including Medline, Web of Knowledge, Google Scholar, Scopus, and Cochrane were searched using pre-established keywords. Analysis of the data followed the PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses and primary analysis followed the Mantel-Hansel methodology. Correctness of classification for detecting coronary artery stenosis ≥50% (CAS) was measured using ICA as the gold standard.
resultsA total of five studies met inclusion criteria, with a total of 417 patients and 2883 coronary segments. The pooled per patient sensitivity and specificity of NC-MRCA for CAS in suspected patients was 90.3% (95% CI 85.6-95.1%) and 77.9% (95% CI 69.5-86.3%). Pooled per vessel assessment of NC- MRCA revealed a sensitivity of 83.7% (95%CI 79.7-87.8%) and specificity of 90.0% (95%CI 86.7-93.4%). Per-segment assessment of NC-MRCA showed a pooled sensitivity of 81.6% (95% CI 76.8-86.4) and specificity of 97.0% (95% CI 95.5-98.5). Mild to moderate heterogeneity was noted in most diagnostic parameters with larger heterogeneity noted in the per-segment analyses. There was less heterogeneity in sensitivity and NPV than specificity and PPV.
conclusionAccording to this meta-analysis, non-contrast coronary MRA resulted in adequate screening in patients with suspected CAD with high sensitivity and specificity. This result was true for per-patient, per-vessel, and per-segment assessment.
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.