ReviewJournal of cardiovascular imaging2021
Using Cardiac Magnetic Resonance Imaging to Evaluate Patients with Chest Pain in the Emergency Department.
Review in Journal of cardiovascular imaging, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Stress cardiovascular magnetic resonance imaging in intermediate-risk emergency department patients with abnormal high-sensitivity troponin.Journal of cardiovascular magnetic resonance : official journal of the Society for Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance · 2025Article
- Diagnosing acute myocarditis in the emergency department-advancing cardiac MRI with a focus on low-field MR applications.Frontiers in radiology · 2025Review
- Case report: acute myocarditis in two patients with coronary artery disease presenting with chest pain-thinking outside the box.European heart journal. Case reports · 2024Article
- Cardiac Magnetic Resonance Imaging (CMRI) Applications in Patients with Chest Pain in the Emergency Department: A Narrative Review.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Review
- Three-Dimensional Echocardiography and Coagulation Function Detection in the Prognosis Evaluation of Patients with Acute Myocardial Infarction.Computational and mathematical methods in 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
2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
Chest pain is one of the most common presenting symptoms in the emergency department (ED). Among patients with abnormal troponins, it is imperative to quickly and accurately distinguish type 1 acute myocardial infarction (AMI) from other etiologies of myocardial injury. Although high-sensitivity troponin assays introduced a high negative predictive value for AMI, they have exposed the need for diagnostic modalities that can determine the etiology of acute myocardial injury. Cardiac magnetic resonance imaging (CMR) is an effective tool to risk stratifying chest pain among patients in the ED. CMR is non-invasive and has a lower cost of care and shorter length of stay compared to those of invasive coronary angiography. It also provides detailed information on cardiac morphology, function, tissue edema, and location and pattern of tissue damage that can help to differentiate many etiologies of cardiac injury. CMR is particularly useful to distinguish chest pain due to type 1 AMI versus supply-demand mismatch due to acute cardiac noncoronary artery disease. A detailed review of the literature has shown that CMR with stress testing is safe to use in patients presenting to the ED with chest pain, with or without abnormal troponins. CMR is a useful, safe, economical, and effective alternative to the traditional diagnostic tools that are typically used in this patient population. It is a practical tool to risk-stratify patients with possible cardiac pathology and to clarify diagnosis without invasive testing.
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.