ArticleDiagnostics (Basel, Switzerland)2024
Concordance between Coronary Artery Computed Tomography and Invasive Coronary Angiography in a Real-World Population with Suspected Chronic Coronary Syndrome.
Article in Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland), 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.
- Comparison of Non-Invasive and Invasive Diagnostic Methods for Coronary Artery Disease: Single-Centre Data.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2026Article
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
backgroundCoronary computed tomographic angiography (CCTA) is a non-invasive imaging technique that possesses the ability to provide detailed anatomical information about coronary arteries, avoiding unnecessary invasive procedures. Our aim was to assess the ability of CCTA to identify coronary artery disease compared to invasive coronary angiography (ICA) in a real-life setting.
methodsWe examined 137 consecutive patients who underwent ICA after CCTA. The latter was conducted in various non-selected centers, and data regarding stenosis were taken from individual reports without further analysis.
resultsA total of 60.5% of patients who underwent CCTA were found to have at least one critical stenosis, while the remaining 39.5% underwent ICA due to concurrent clinical or instrumental indications. Among these, 29.5% had angiographically critical pathology, 20.3% underwent a percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), and 1.8% had coronary artery bypass grafting. Among the 83 patients with positive CCTA results, 34.9% had negative ICA findings. CCTA demonstrated low sensitivity (57.8%) and a positive predictive value of 42.6%. However, it retained high specificity (83.6%) and a negative predictive value of 90.4% for identifying critical stenosis. Among the 18.2% of patients who underwent CCTA without a specific indication, 60% had critical coronary lesions on their ICA and 86.6% of these subsequently underwent a PCI.
conclusionsCCTA performed in non-selective centers has a low concordance with ICA.
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.