SynthesisHeart (British Cardiac Society)2024
Diagnostic accuracy of non-invasive cardiac imaging modalities in patients with a history of coronary artery disease: a meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Heart (British Cardiac Society), 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 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
11 citing papers in PubMed.
- The Diagnostic and Prognostic Impact of Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance in Ischemic Heart Disease: A Systematic Review.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Review
- Association Between Coronary Artery Calcium Score and Right Ventricular Dysfunction: Insights from Combined Echocardiographic and CT Assessment.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Article
- 2024 European Society of Cardiology guidelines for the management of chronic coronary syndromes : Statement of endorsement by the NVVC.Netherlands heart journal : monthly journal of the Netherlands Society of Cardiology and the Netherlands Heart Foundation · 2026Review
- [Cardiovascular imaging using cardiac computed tomography and cardiac magnetic resonance imaging].Herz · 2026Review
- Cardiac CT for personalized phenotyping in stable coronary artery disease: toward precision medicine.BJR open · 2026Review
- Referral patterns and findings of patients undergoing CT coronary angiography.Qatar medical journal · 2026Article
- Impact of Next-Generation Computed Tomography Scanners on Image Quality and Radiation Dose in Cardiac CT Outpatient Imaging.RoFo : Fortschritte auf dem Gebiete der Rontgenstrahlen und der Nuklearmedizin · 2025Article
- Myocardial perfusion imaging in advanced coronary artery disease.European journal of clinical investigation · 2025Review
- What role for cardiac imaging in chronic coronary syndromes: review of the literature in light of the latest recommendations.European heart journal. Imaging methods and practice · 2025Review
- Development and validation of a novel coronary artery disease risk prediction model.Journal of translational medicine · 2025Review
- CAD at the Intersection of Cardiology and Rheumatology: Focus on Cardiovascular Imaging.Methodist DeBakey cardiovascular journal · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe diagnostic performance of non-invasive imaging techniques for detecting obstructive coronary artery disease (CAD) in patients with a history of myocardial infarction or percutaneous coronary intervention has not been comprehensively evaluated. This meta-analysis assesses the diagnostic value of coronary CT angiography (CCTA), CCTA combined with CT perfusion (CCTA+CTP), cardiac MRI (CMR) and single-photon emission CT (SPECT) compared with invasive reference standards.
methodsWe systematically searched PubMed, Embase, Web of Science and the Cochrane Library from 2005 to September 2022 for prospective, blinded studies including populations with ≥50% prior CAD.
resultsWe identified 18 studies encompassing 3265 patients, with obstructive CAD present in 64%. The per-patient sensitivity of CCTA (0.95; 95% CI 0.92 to 0.98), CCTA+CTP (0.93; 95% CI 0.84 to 0.98) and CMR (0.91; 95% CI 0.86 to 0.94) was high, while SPECT showed lower sensitivity (0.63; 95% CI 0.52 to 0.73). SPECT had higher specificity compared with CCTA (0.66; 95% CI 0.56 to 0.76 vs 0.37; 95% CI 0.29 to 0.46), but was comparable to CCTA+CTP (0.59; 95% CI 0.49 to 0.69) and CMR (0.69; 95% CI 0.53 to 0.81). The area under the curve for SPECT was the lowest (0.70; 95% CI 0.58 to 0.87), while CCTA (0.91; 95% CI 0.86 to 0.98), CCTA+CTP (0.89; 95% CI 0.73 to 1.00) and CMR (0.91; 95% CI 0.80 to 1.00) showed similar high values.
conclusionsIn patients with prior CAD, CCTA, CCTA+CTP and CMR demonstrated high diagnostic performance, whereas SPECT had lower sensitivity. These findings can guide the selection of non-invasive imaging techniques in this high-risk population. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42022322348.
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.