SynthesisThe international journal of cardiovascular imaging2025
Diagnosis of bicuspid aortic valves: CT vs. TTE.
Synthesis in The international journal of cardiovascular imaging, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Bicuspid aortic valve imaging: one modality to rule them all?The international journal of cardiovascular imaging · 2025Article
- Severe mitral stenosis as a cause of paradoxical low-flow, low-gradient severe aortic stenosis: an explorative study on hemodynamics and outcomes.Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Bicuspid aortic valfves (BAV) are a relatively common cardiac abnormality, with an associated risk of aortic stenosis, aortic regurgitation and aortopathy. First-line diagnosis is via transthoracic echocardiography (TTE), which may be impacted by valve calcification and operator variability. Electrocardiogram-gated computed tomography (CT) offers an alternative form of assessment. The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis is to evaluate the diagnostic performance of TTE versus CT for BAV. Eligible studies were retrieved from inception through to March 2024 on OVID Medline, Embase and Cochrane Library. All primary studies regarding the diagnostic performance of TTE and/or CT with regards to BAV were included. The QUADAS-2 tool was utilized for quality assessment. Sensitivity and specificity data were statistically analyzed. Of 4698 records, 19 were eligible for inclusion, and 16 had sufficient data for inclusion in the meta-analysis. There was only data regarding TTE vs. retrospectively ECG-gated CT. There was a significant difference between the sensitivity of retrospectively ECG-gated cardiac CT (95.5% (95% CI: [91.3-97.5%]) and TTE (79.7%, 95% CI: [71.6-86.0%]) for identifying BAV. The specificity was high and not significantly different for both CT and TTE (96%, 95% CI: [92.5-98.2%] and 91.3%, 95% CI: [87.3-93.8%], respectively). Retrospectively ECG-gated CT demonstrates greater sensitivity for diagnosis of BAV compared to TTE. Both modalities are non-invasive and demonstrate good specificity for excluding BAV. Given that CT scans are easily accessible, they offer a reasonable second-line investigation for diagnosis of BAV when an initial TTE is inconclusive.
Indexed as
Identifiers
39652208What 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.