ReviewJournal of cardiovascular imaging2023
Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance Versus Histopathologic Study for Diagnosis of Benign and Malignant Cardiac Tumours: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
Review in Journal of cardiovascular imaging, 2023. 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.
- 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe gold standard for diagnosis of cardiac tumours is histopathological examination. Cardiovascular magnetic resonance (CMR) is a valuable non-invasive, radiation-free tool for identifying and characterizing cardiac tumours. Our aim is to understand CMR diagnosis of cardiac tumours by distinguishing benign vs. malignant tumours compared to the gold standard.
methodsA systematic search was performed in the PubMed, Web of Science, and Scopus databases up to December 2022, and the results were reviewed by 2 independent investigators. Studies reporting CMR diagnosis were included in a meta-analysis, and pooled measures were obtained. The risk of bias was assessed using the Quality Assessment Tools from the National Institutes of Health.
resultsA total of 2,321 results was obtained; 10 studies were eligible, including one identified by citation search. Eight studies were included in the meta-analysis, which presented a pooled sensitivity of 93% and specificity of 94%, a diagnostic odds ratio of 185, and an area under the curve of 0.98 for CMR diagnosis of benign vs. malignant tumours. Additionally, 4 studies evaluated whether CMR diagnosis of cardiac tumours matched specific histopathological subtypes, with 73.6% achieving the correct diagnosis.
conclusionsTo the best of our knowledge, this is the first published systematic review on CMR diagnosis of cardiac tumours. Compared to histopathological results, the ability to discriminate benign from malignant tumours was good but not outstanding. However, significant heterogeneity may have had an impact on our 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.