ArticleThe international journal of cardiovascular imaging2022
Harmonizing multimodality imaging results using Bayesian analysis: the case of CT coronary angiography and CT-derived fractional flow reserve.
Article in The international journal of cardiovascular imaging, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- The chest pain guidelines revisited: cherry picking from the frequentist tree.Journal of nuclear cardiology : official publication of the American Society of Nuclear Cardiology · 2023Article
- The Application of Conditional Probability to Harmonize Nuclear Cardiology Test Results.Annals of nuclear cardiology · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Coronary computed tomographic angiography (CCTA) may provide both anatomic and CT fractional flow reserve data (CTFFR). The objective is to use Bayesian analysis to develop a model wherein the probability of significant coronary artery disease (CAD) by CTFFR can be determined given the prior probability (P) of the combined clinical and CCTA result. 172 patients referred for CCTA and subsequently underwent coronary angiography were automatically referred to CTFFR analysis. A clinical P risk score (CRS) was calculated per patient. CCTA exams were scored using CAD-RADS classification. CTFFR results were generated. CAD was defined as ≥ 3 RAD class for CCTA and ≤ .80 by CTFFR. P was calculated using CCTA and CTFFR accuracy from a prior clinical trial: post-test P for the CCTA result used the CRS as the prior risk, and CTFFR P used the post-test CRS + CCTA P as the prior risk (tri-variable). Patients were classified for each model into low (< 5%), intermediate, (5-70%) and high (> 70%) risk groups. There were 100 patients (58%), who had significant CAD at angiography. 58 patients had discordant CCTA/CTFFR results. The inclusion of the CRS and CRS + CCTA in the prior progressively reduced the intermediate risk cohort from 83 to 41% (p < 0.0001). Correct classifications (low-risk, negative angiogram plus high-risk, positive angiogram) increased by model: CRS = 12%, CRS + CCTA = 25%, CRS + CTFFR = 33%, CRS + CCTA + CTFFR = 44% (p < 0.001). Incorrect classifications were reduced to 15%. The tri-variable model performed better than either CCTA or CTFFR alone for all patients and for the sub-group with discordant imaging results. Discrepant CCTA and CTFFR results are present in one third of patients. The use of both the CRS and CCTA as the prior risk synergistically maximized the accuracy of the accuracy of the CTFFR technique.
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.