Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38584662›Full record

ArticleJournal of cardiovascular and thoracic research2024

Low-dose, high-pitch, spiral (FLASH) mode versus conventional sequential method for coronary artery calcium scoring: A derivation-validation study.

Niraj Nirmal Pandey, Sayannika Chakraborty, Mansi Verma, Priya Jagia

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of cardiovascular and thoracic research, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Niraj Nirmal PandeyDepartment of Cardiovascular Radiology & Endovascular Interventions, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, New Delhi, India.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6786-8304
Sayannika ChakrabortyDepartment of Cardiovascular Radiology & Endovascular Interventions, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, New Delhi, India.
Mansi VermaDepartment of Cardiovascular Radiology & Endovascular Interventions, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, New Delhi, India.
Priya JagiaDepartment of Cardiovascular Radiology & Endovascular Interventions, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, New Delhi, India.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5605-8672

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Introduction: The present study sought to compare the diagnostic accuracy and radiation dose of ECG-gated, ultra-fast, low-dose, high-pitch, spiral (FLASH) mode versus conventional, ECG-gated, sequential coronary artery calcium (CAC) scoring in patients with suspected coronary artery disease (CAD). Methods: The study included 120 patients who underwent both conventional scanning and FLASH mode scanning and were subdivided into derivation and validation cohorts. In the conventional sequential (step-and-shoot) protocol, prospective ECG-gated, non-contrast acquisition was performed at 70% of R-R interval. The spiral (FLASH) mode utilized a high-pitch and high-speed gantry rotation scanning mode where acquisition of the entire heart was done within a single cardiac cycle with prospective ECG-gating at 70% of R-R interval. Results: Correlation between CAC scores derived from conventional (cCAC) and FLASH mode (fCAC) in derivation cohort was excellent (r=0.99; Conclusion: CAC scoring using FLASH mode is feasible with high accuracy and shows excellent agreement with conventional CAC scores at significantly reduced radiation doses.

Indexed as

Cardiac-gated imaging techniquesCoronary angiographyCoronary artery disease

Identifiers

PMID38584662
PMCPMC10997979

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.