ArticleOpen heart2022
Coronary calcification measures predict mortality in symptomatic women and men.
Article in Open heart, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Evaluating the Role ofDiagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo assess the prognostic value of absolute and sex-specific, age-specific and race/ethnicity-specific (Multi-Ethnic Study of Atherosclerosis, MESA) percentiles of coronary artery calcification in symptomatic women and men.
methodsThe study population consisted of 4985 symptomatic patients (2793 women, 56%) visiting a diagnostic outpatient cardiology clinic between 2009 and 2018 who were referred for cardiac CT to determine Coronary Artery Calcium Score (CACS). Regular care data were used and these data were linked to the databases of Statistics Netherlands for all-cause mortality data. Kaplan-Meier curves, multivariate Cox proportional hazards regression and concordance statistics were used to evaluate the prognostic value of CACS and MESA percentiles. Women were older compared with men (60 vs 59 years).
resultsMedian CACS was 0 (IQR: 0-54) in women and 42 (IQR: 0-54) in men. After a median follow-up of 4.4 years (IQR: 3.1-6.3), 116 (2.3%; 53 women and 63 men) patients died. MESA percentiles did not perform better compared with absolute CACS (C-statistic 0.65, 95% CI 0.57 to 0.73, vs 0.66, 95% CI 0.58 to 0.74, in women and 0.59, 95% CI 0.51 to 0.67, vs 0.62, 95% CI 0.55 to 0.69, in men, for the percentiles and absolute CACS, respectively).
conclusionsIn symptomatic individuals absolute CACS predicts mortality with a moderately good performance. MESA percentiles did not perform better compared with absolute CACS, thus there is no need to use them. Including degree of stenosis in the model might slightly improve mortality risk prediction in women, but not in men.
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.