ReviewClinical cardiology2024
Lack of Class I Vasoreactivity Testing for Diagnosing Patients With Coronary Artery Spasm.
Review in Clinical cardiology, 2024. 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.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundVasoreactivity testing, such as intracoronary acetylcholine (ACh) or ergometrine (EM), is defined as Class I for the diagnosis of patients with vasospastic angina (VSA) according to recommendations from the Coronary Vasomotion Disorders International Study (COVADIS) group and guidelines from the Japanese Circulation Society (JCS). HYPOTHESIS: Although vasoreactivity testing is a clinically useful tool, it carries some risks and limitations in diagnosing coronary artery spasm.
methodsPrevious reports on vasoreactivity testing for diagnosing the presence of coronary spasm are summarized from the perspective of Class I.
resultsThere are several problems such as reproducibility, underestimation, overestimation, and inconclusive/nonspecific results associated with daily spasm. Because provoked spasm caused by intracoronary ACh is not always similar to that caused by intracoronary EM, possibly due to different mediators, supplementary use of these vasoreactivity tests is necessary for cardiologists to diagnose VSA when a provoked spasm is not revealed by each vasoactive agent.
conclusionsCardiologists should understand the imperfection of these vasoreactivity tests when diagnosing patients with VSA.
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.