ArticleEuropean journal of nuclear medicine and molecular imaging2022
Diagnosis and staging of cardiac masses: additional value of CMR with
Article in European journal of nuclear medicine and molecular imaging, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- [European journal of nuclear medicine and molecular imaging · 2025Pooled it
- Hybrid cardiovascular imaging. A clinical consensus statement of the european association of nuclear medicine (EANM) and the european association of cardiovascular imaging (EACVI) of the ESC.European journal of nuclear medicine and molecular imaging · 2025Review
- Multiple thrombi mimicking metastases in the right atrium of patients with non-Hodgkin's lymphoma diagnosed by multimodal cardiac imaging: one case report.Journal of cardiothoracic surgery · 2024Article
- Tales from the future-nuclear cardio-oncology, from prediction to diagnosis and monitoring.European heart journal. Cardiovascular Imaging · 2023Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
14 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeCharacterization of malignant cardiac masses is usually performed with cardiac magnetic resonance (CMR) and staging with whole-body contrast-enhanced computed tomography (CECT). In this study, our objective was to evaluate the role of
methodsPatients with cardiac masses who underwent CMR, CECT, and
resultsIn a total of 28 patients (median age 60.5 years, 60.7% women), CMR accurately distinguished malignant from benign masses with sensitivity (Se) of 86.7%, specificity (Sp) of 100%, positive predictive value (PPV) of 100%, negative predictive value (NPV) of 86.7%, and accuracy of 92.9%.
conclusionCombining
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.