ArticleScientific reports2024
Diagnostic values of inferior Q-waves for myocardial scar identification detected by 3.0 T cardiac MRI.
Article in Scientific reports, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
While Q-waves in inferior leads, particularly lead III, can be regarded as a minor abnormality, it can also indicate the presence of myocardial scar. This study assessed the diagnostic value of pathologic inferior Q-waves (lead II, III, aVF) for detecting ischemic scars using a high-resolution 3.0 T cardiac magnetic resonance (CMR). We retrospectively analyzed 1692 patients with suspected or known coronary artery disease who underwent stress CMR perfusion or viability assessment. Pathologic Q-waves were defined as duration of ≥ 30 ms and depth of ≥ 1 mm or QS-complex. Eleven models were created to evaluate the presence of Q-waves in different combinations of inferior leads. Of the 1692 patients, 436 (25.8%) had pathologic Q-waves. Models with Q-waves in leads II + aVF (model 7) and II + III + aVF (model 9) showed high specificity (100% and 99.6%), positive predictive value (PPV) (80.0% and 86.7%), and negative predictive value (NPV) (82.6% and 84.3%) but low sensitivity (1.3% and 13.1%). Other models also maintained high specificity and NPV but poor sensitivity and PPV. Notably, 21% of patients with an isolated pathologic Q-wave in lead III (model 4) exhibited scars. These findings highlight the need for careful clinical assessment when pathologic Q-waves are present.
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.