ArticleRadiologia brasileira
Clinical experience regarding the diagnostic value of segment-by-segment coronary computed tomography angiography in comparison with that of invasive coronary angiography.
Article in Radiologia brasileira. 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
3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: To compare the degree of coronary stenosis (≥ 50% luminal narrowing) determined by coronary computed tomography angiography (CCTA) with that determined by invasive coronary angiography (ICA), using segment-by-segment analysis. Materials and Methods: This was a retrospective study of the records of patients who underwent CCTA and ICA between January 2014 and June 2018 at a general hospital in Brazil. Receiver operating characteristic curve analysis was applied, and the areas under the curve were used in order to assess the overall accuracy of the methods. Results: The degree of coronary stenosis was evaluated in a total of 844 arterial segments. The diagnostic performance of CCTA was good, with a sensitivity of 82.3%, a specificity of 96.4%, and a negative predictive value of 97.7% (95% CI: 96.5-98.5). In the segment-by-segment analysis, CCTA had excellent accuracy for the left main coronary artery and for other segments. Conclusion: In clinical practice at general hospitals, CCTA appears to have diagnostic performance comparable to that of ICA.
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.