ArticleRadiology. Cardiothoracic imaging2023
Comparative Effectiveness of Coronary CT Angiography and Standard of Care for Evaluating Acute Chest Pain: A Living Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
Article in Radiology. Cardiothoracic imaging, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 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
10 citing papers in PubMed, 19 citations in OpenAlex.
- Diagnostic performance of coronary CTA versus exercise electrocardiography in acute chest pain: A propensity score-matched study in the emergency department.European journal of radiology open · 2026Article
- Coronary Computed Tomography Angiography to Exclude Acute Coronary Syndrome in Low-Risk Chest Pain Patients.Journal of cardiovascular development and disease · 2025Review
- Human-in-the-Loop Artificial Intelligence System for Systematic Literature Review: Methods and Validations for the AutoLit Review Software.Cochrane evidence synthesis and methods · 2025Article
- Development and validation of deep learning model for detection of obstructive coronary artery disease in patients with acute chest pain: a multi-center study.La Radiologia medica · 2025Article
- Coronary computed tomography angiographyWorld journal of cardiology · 2025Article
- Clinical Benefits of Coronary Computed Tomography Angiography for Evaluating Low-Risk Patients With Non-ST-Elevation Acute Coronary Syndrome in the Emergency Department - Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Circulation reports · 2025Article
- Evolving Role of Coronary CT Angiography in Coronary Angiography and Intervention: A State-of-the-Art Review.Current cardiology reports · 2024Review
- Computed Tomography Evaluation of Coronary Atherosclerosis: The Road Travelled, and What Lies Ahead.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Review
- Challenges and Successes in Introducing Coronary CT Angiography in an Emergency Medicine-Run Observation Unit.Cureus · 2024Article
- Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: To perform a living systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials comparing the effectiveness of coronary CT angiography (CCTA) and standard of care (SOC) in the evaluation of acute chest pain (ACP). Materials and Methods: Multiple electronic databases were systematically searched, with the most recent search conducted on October 31, 2022. Studies were stratified into two groups according to the pretest probability for acute coronary syndrome (group 1 with predominantly low-to-intermediate risk vs group 2 with high risk). A meta-regression analysis was also conducted using participant risk, type of SOC used, and the use or nonuse of high-sensitivity troponins as independent variables. Results: The final analysis included 22 randomized controlled trials (9379 total participants; 4956 assigned to CCTA arms and 4423 to SOC arms). There was a 14% reduction in the length of stay and a 17% reduction in immediate costs for the CCTA arm compared with the SOC arm. In group 1, the length of stay was 17% shorter and costs were 21% lower using CCTA. There was no evidence of differences in referrals to invasive coronary angiography, myocardial infarction, mortality, rate of hospitalization, further stress testing, or readmissions between CCTA and SOC arms. There were more revascularizations (relative risk, 1.45) and medication changes (relative risk, 1.33) in participants with low-to-intermediate acute coronary syndrome risk and increased radiation exposure in high-risk participants (mean difference, 7.24 mSv) in the CCTA arm compared with the SOC arm. The meta-regression analysis found significant differences between CCTA and SOC arms for rate of hospitalization, further stress testing, and medication changes depending on the type of SOC ( Conclusion: The results support the use of CCTA as a safe, rapid, and less expensive in the short term strategy to exclude acute coronary syndrome in low- to intermediate-risk patients presenting with acute chest pain.
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.