ReviewFrontiers in cardiovascular medicine2023
Comparison of prognosis between coronary computed tomography angiography versus invasive coronary angiography for stable coronary artery disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Review in Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Protocol for optimizing the utilization rates of coronary angiography in Norway.Research in health services & regions · 2026Article
- Evaluation of patient-reported outcomes in coronary CT angiography versus invasive coronary angiography.European journal of radiology open · 2026Article
- Comparison of Coronary Computed Tomography Angiography and Invasive Coronary Angiography in Nonobstructive Coronary Artery Disease: The Brazilian Coronary ARtery Disease (BARD) Study.Arquivos brasileiros de cardiologia · 2026Article
- Article
- Kugel's Artery in Coronary Computed Tomography Angiography in a Patient with Left Main Subtotal Stenosis.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- An In-Depth Insight into Clinical, Cellular and Molecular Factors in COVID19-Associated Cardiovascular Ailments for Identifying Novel Disease Biomarkers, Drug Targets and Clinical Management Strategies.Archives of microbiology & immunology · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: The impact of using invasive coronary angiography (ICA) or coronary computed tomography angiography (CCTA) as an initial examination on the incidence of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACEs) in patients with stable coronary artery disease and the occurrence of major operation-related complications is uncertain. Objective: This study aimed to explore the effects of ICA vs. CCTA on MACEs, all-cause death, and major operation-related complications. Methods: A systematic search of electronic databases (PubMed and Embase) was conducted for randomized controlled trials and observational studies comparing MACEs between ICA and CCTA from January 2012 to May 2022. The primary outcome measure was analyzed using a random-effects model as a pooled odds ratio (OR). The main observations were MACEs, all-cause death, and major operation-related complications. Results: A total of six studies, comprising 26,548 patients, met the inclusion criteria (ICA Conclusions: Among patients with stable coronary artery disease, an initial examination with ICA was significantly associated with the risk of MACEs, all-cause death, and major procedure-related complications compared to CCTA in this meta-analysis.
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.