ArticleJournal of clinical medicine2022
Comprehensive Cardiac Magnetic Resonance to Detect Subacute Myocarditis.
Article in Journal of clinical medicine, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 10 citations in OpenAlex.
- Multiparametric CMR in Myocarditis: A Comprehensive Review of Diagnostic Advances, Prognostic Value, and the Challenge of Genetic Mimics.Biomedicines · 2026Review
- Attenuation-based estimation of myocardial extracellular volume from ECG-ungated whole-body CT examinations as an early biomarker of chemotherapy-induced cardiotoxicity: preliminary findings.La Radiologia medica · 2026Article
- Diagnostic performance of cardiovascular magnetic resonance parametric mapping as per modified Lake Louise Criteria in acute myocarditis: an updated systematic review and meta-analysis.Journal of cardiovascular imaging · 2025Article
- Assessing Acute Pericarditis with T1 Mapping: A Supportive Contrast-Free CMR Marker.Tomography (Ann Arbor, Mich.) · 2024Article
- T1 Mapping MOLLI 5(3)3 Acquisition Scheme Yields High Accuracy in 1.5 T Cardiac Magnetic Resonance.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 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
9 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
(1) Background: Compared to acute myocarditis in the initial phase, detection of subacute myocarditis with cardiac magnetic resonance (CMR) parameters can be challenging due to a lower degree of myocardial inflammation compared to the acute phase. (2) Objectives: To systematically evaluate non-invasive CMR imaging parameters in acute and subacute myocarditis. (3) Methods: 48 patients (age 37 (IQR 28−55) years; 52% female) with clinically suspected myocarditis were consecutively included. Patients with onset of symptoms ≤2 weeks prior to 1.5T CMR were assigned to the acute group (n = 25, 52%), patients with symptom duration >2 to 6 weeks were assigned to the subacute group (n = 23, 48%). CMR protocol comprised morphology, function, 3D-strain, late gadolinium enhancement (LGE) imaging and mapping (T1, ECV, T2). (4) Results: Highest diagnostic performance in the detection of subacute myocarditis was achieved by ECV evaluation either as single parameter or in combination with T1 mapping (applying a segmental or global increase of native T1 > 1015 ms and ECV > 28%), sensitivity 96% and accuracy 91%. Compared to subacute myocarditis, acute myocarditis demonstrated higher prevalence and extent of LGE (AUC 0.76) and increased T2 (AUC 0.66). (5) Conclusions: A comprehensive CMR approach allows reliable diagnosis of clinically suspected subacute myocarditis. Thereby, ECV alone or in combination with native T1 mapping indicated the best performance for diagnosing subacute myocarditis. Acute vs. subacute myocarditis is difficult to discriminate by CMR alone, due to chronological connection and overlap of pathologic findings.
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.