ReviewRadiologie (Heidelberg, Germany)2024
[Plaque characterization and individualized risk assessment].
Review in Radiologie (Heidelberg, Germany), 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
clinical/methodical issueRisk assessment and accurate plaque characterization are key to individual prognosis in coronary artery disease (CAD). STANDARD RADIOLOGICAL
methodsThe standard of care is cardiac computed tomography (CT), including calcium scoring and coronary CT angiography (CCTA). Diagnosis is based on the CAD-RADS (Coronary Artery Disease-Reporting and Data System) classification. METHODOLOGICAL INNOVATIONS: New developments include CT-based fractional flow reserve (CT-FFR) and plaque quantification ("virtual histology"). PERFORMANCE: A calcium score of 0 indicates an event risk of less than 1% over 10 years [7, 17]. CAD-RADS classes 1 to 5 allow risk assessment compared to patients without coronary plaques [2]. CT-FFR has high accuracy (area under the curve [AUC] 0.90; 95% confidence interval 0.87-0.94) in assessing the hemodynamic significance of stenoses compared with invasive coronary angiography [25]. Plaque quantification has shown that a necrotic core greater than 4% is associated with an almost fivefold increase in 5‑year event risk [29]. ACHIEVEMENTS: The presence of obstructive CAD (stenosis > 50%) is a strong prognostic factor. The evaluation of the hemodynamic relevance of 40-90% stenoses by CT-FFR or other functional tests is already guideline-compliant in the USA, but not yet in Germany. Quantitative approaches to measure plaque volume and composition are gaining importance in research and are expected to become relevant in clinical practice. PRACTICAL RECOMMENDATIONS: The CAD-RADS 2.0 classification, which also provides therapy recommendations, should be used to assess the extent of CAD.
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.