ArticleJournal of diabetes research2022
Comparison of Risk Assessment Strategies for Patients with Diabetes Mellitus and Stable Chest Pain: A Coronary Computed Tomography Angiography Study.
Article in Journal of diabetes research, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Comparison of the RF-CL and CACS-CL models to estimate the pretest probability of obstructive coronary artery disease and predict prognosis in patients with stable chest pain and diabetes mellitus.Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 2024Article
- Comparison of two diagnostic strategies for patients with stable chest pain suggestive of chronic coronary syndrome: rationale and design of the double-blind, pragmatic, randomized and controlled OPERATE Trial.BMC cardiovascular disorders · 2023Article
- Saudi Heart Association Guidelines on Best Practices in the Management of Chronic Coronary Syndromes.Journal of the Saudi Heart Association · 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
6 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundTo compare two risk assessment strategies to identify individuals likely to benefit from further imaging testing in patients with diabetes mellitus (DM) and stable chest pain (SCP) suspected of obstructive coronary artery disease (CAD).
methods602 DM patients referred to coronary computed tomography angiography (CCTA) for SCP were included. They were divided into high- and low-risk groups according to the 2016 National Institute of Health and Care Excellence guideline-determined strategy (NICE strategy) which focused on symptom evaluation and 2019 European Society of Cardiology guideline-determined strategy (ESC strategy) which was based on pretest probability (PTP) sequentially determined by the ESC-PTP estimator and risk factor-weighted clinical likelihood (RF-CL) model, respectively. The associations of clinical outcomes with risk groups and net reclassification improvement (NRI) were evaluated.
resultsThe NICE and ESC strategy classified 44% and 39% patients into the low-risk group, respectively. Compared to the NICE strategy, the ESC strategy indicated stronger associations between risk groups and events (hazard ratios: 4.24 versus 1.91), intensive clinical management, and a positive NRI (27.71%,
conclusionCompared to the NICE strategy, the ESC strategy seemed to be associated with greater efficiency in identifying high risk individuals in patients with DM and SCP.
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.