ArticleEuropean radiology2022
Quality and safety of coronary computed tomography angiography at academic and non-academic sites: insights from a large European registry (ESCR MR/CT Registry).
Article in European radiology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 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
13 citing papers in PubMed, 16 citations in OpenAlex.
- CT Radiation Dose Reduction With Preserved Diagnostic Performance: How Far Have We Come Over 25 Years?AJR. American journal of roentgenology · 2026Review
- Article
- Impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on cardiac magnetic resonance imaging practices: insights from the MRCT registry.European radiology · 2025Article
- [Current guidelines for chronic coronary syndrome : Role of computed tomography-coronary angiography and pretest probability for coronary artery disease].Radiologie (Heidelberg, Germany) · 2024Review
- Clinically Relevant Extracardiac Findings at Cardiac Imaging: Insights from the European MR/CT Registry.Radiology. Cardiothoracic imaging · 2024Article
- Competence and contributions of radiologists to cardiac CT and MR imaging across Europe.European radiology · 2024Article
- Competence of radiologists in cardiac CT and MR imaging in Europe: insights from the ESCR Registry.European radiology · 2024Article
- Increasing the rate of datasets amenable to CTEuropean journal of radiology open · 2024Article
- ESR Bridges: CT builds bridges in coronary artery disease.European radiology · 2024Article
- Cardiac radiology in Europe: status and vision by the European Society of Cardiovascular Radiology (ESCR) and the European Society of Radiology (ESR).European radiology · 2023Article
- [German Radiological Society and the Professional Association of German Radiologists position paper on coronary computed tomography: clinical evidence and quality of patient care in chronic coronary syndrome].Radiologie (Heidelberg, Germany) · 2023Review
- Coronary Computed Tomography vs. Cardiac Magnetic Resonance Imaging in the Evaluation of Coronary Artery Disease.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Review
- [Computed tomography and magnetic resonance imaging in cardiac diagnostics-how to choose the right modality : A guide based on the new guidelines of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC)].Radiologie (Heidelberg, Germany) · 2022Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
19 authors at 12 institutions in 7 countries.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesTo compare the use of coronary computed tomography angiography (CCTA) between academic and non-academic sites across Europe over the last decade.
methodsWe analyzed a large multicenter registry (ESCR MR/CT Registry) of stable symptomatic patients who received CCTA 01/2010-01/2020 at 47 (22%) academic and 165 (78%) non-academic sites across 19 European countries. We compared image quality, radiation dose, contrast-media-related adverse events, patient characteristics, CCTA findings, and downstream testing between academic and non-academic sites.
resultsAmong 64,317 included patients (41% female; 60 ± 13 years), academic sites accounted for most cases in 2010-2014 (52%), while non-academic sites dominated in 2015-2020 (71%). Despite less contemporary technology, non-academic sites maintained low radiation doses (4.76 [2.46-6.85] mSv) with a 30% decline of high-dose scans ( > 7 mSv) over time. Academic and non-academic sites both reported diagnostic image quality in 98% of cases and low rate of scan-related adverse events (0.4%). Academic and non-academic sites examined similar patient populations (41% females both; age: 61 ± 14 vs. 60 ± 12 years; pretest probability for obstructive CAD: low 21% vs. 23%, intermediate 73% vs. 72%, high 6% both, CAD prevalence on CCTA: 40% vs. 41%). Nevertheless, non-academic sites referred more patients to non-invasive ischemia testing (6.5% vs. 4.2%) and invasive coronary angiography/surgery (8.5% vs. 5.6%).
conclusionsNon-academic and academic sites provide safe, high-quality CCTA across Europe, essential to successfully implement the recently updated guidelines for the diagnosis and management of chronic coronary syndromes. However, despite examining similar populations with comparable CAD prevalence, non-academic sites tend to refer more patients to downstream testing. KEY POINTS: • Smaller non-academic providers increasingly use CCTA to rule out obstructive coronary artery disease. • Non-academic and academic sites provide comparably safe, high-quality CCTA across Europe. • Compared to academic sites, non-academic sites tend to refer more patients to downstream 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.