ArticleHeart and vessels2022
Scoring model to predict low image quality of drug-eluting stent evaluated by computed tomography coronary angiography.
Article in Heart and vessels, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 0 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Evaluation of in-stent restenosis (ISR) by computed tomography coronary angiography (CTCA) is less invasive but often impossible. We aimed to create a scoring model for predicting which drug-eluting stents (DES) cannot be evaluated with CTCA. We enrolled 757 consecutive implanted DES assessed with CTCA. Non-diagnostic evaluation was defined as poor/not evaluative by two different observers. These stents were randomly divided into a derivation (n = 379) and validation (n = 378) group. In the derivation group, we assessed predictors using logistic regression analysis and created a scoring model that would stratify non-diagnostic evaluation of DES-ISR. The validity of this scoring model was evaluated in the validation group using receiver-operating characteristic analysis. The percentage of non-diagnostic stents was 19/21% in the derivation/validation group (p = 0.71). Non-diagnostic evaluation was independently associated with implanted stent diameter (2.25-2.5. vs. 2.5-3 vs. > 3.0 mm), severe calcification, stent-in-stent lesion, and type of DES (stainless vs. CoCr vs. PtCr) in the derivation group. The predicting system of implanted DES non-diagnostic by CTCA (PIDENT) for non-diagnostic evaluation, including these four baseline factors, was derived (C-statistic = 0.86 in derivation group, cutoff: 8 points). The PIDENT score had a high predictive value for non-diagnostic DES in the validation model (C-statistic = 0.87, sensitivity 86%, specificity 74%, cutoff 8 points, p < 0.001). The PIDENT score, consisting of baseline characteristics including implanted stent diameter, severe calcification, stent-in-stent lesion, and type of DES, could identify non-diagnostic evaluation of DES-ISR with CTCA. The PIDENT score was valuable in reducing nonevaluable and meaningless CTCA for DES-ISR.
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.