ReviewJournal of imaging2023
Aortic Valve Calcium Score by Computed Tomography as an Adjunct to Echocardiographic Assessment-A Review of Clinical Utility and Applications.
Review in Journal of imaging, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 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
9 citing papers in PubMed.
- Artificial intelligence-based calcium scoring using 3D transesophageal echocardiography in aortic stenosis: a pilot study.Journal of cardiovascular imaging · 2026Article
- Opportunistic automated aortic valve calcification assessment in low-cost, screening CT calcium score exams.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Aortic Valve Calcium Scoring Using True and Virtual Non-Contrast Reconstructions on Photon-Counting CT with Differing Slice Increments: Impact on Calcium Severity Classifications.Tomography (Ann Arbor, Mich.) · 2025Article
- Discordant High-Gradient Aortic Stenosis: A Systematic Review.Journal of cardiovascular development and disease · 2025Review
- Comparing Early Intervention to Watchful Waiting: A Review on Risk Stratification and Management in Asymptomatic Aortic Stenosis.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2025Review
- Diagnostic Challenges in the Management of Aortic Valve Stenosis and the Role of Imaging: A Narrative Review.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Review
- Review
- Association between triglyceride-glucose-body mass index and risk of aortic stenosis progression in patients with non-severe aortic stenosis: a retrospective cohort study.Cardiovascular diabetology · 2025Observational
- Aortic valve assessment by cardiac tomography: application in clinical practice.Archivos peruanos de cardiologia y cirugia cardiovascularReview
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
Aortic valve stenosis (AS) is increasing in prevalence due to the aging population, and severe AS is associated with significant morbidity and mortality. Echocardiography remains the mainstay for the initial detection and diagnosis of AS, as well as for grading of severity. However, there are important subgroups of patients, for example, patients with low-flow low-gradient or paradoxical low-gradient AS, where quantification of severity of AS is challenging by echocardiography and underestimation of severity may delay appropriate management and impart a worse prognosis. Aortic valve calcium score by computed tomography has emerged as a useful clinical diagnostic test that is complimentary to echocardiography, particularly in cases where there may be conflicting data or clinical uncertainty about the degree of AS. In these situations, aortic valve calcium scoring may help re-stratify grading of severity and, therefore, further direct clinical management. This review presents the evolution of aortic valve calcium score by computed tomography, its diagnostic and prognostic value, as well as its utility in clinical care.
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.