ReviewInternal medicine journal2025
Non-invasive screening for coronary artery disease: current perspectives, patient, public health and ethical considerations in evaluating symptomatic and asymptomatic individuals.
Review in Internal medicine journal, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
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, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Comparative systematic review of coronary artery calcium scoring guidelines: CSANZ versus ACC/AHA and ESC recommendations.Internal medicine journal · 2026Pooled it
- Relationship between the prevalence of breast arterial calcifications on mammography and coronary calcifications on Chest CT: A cross-sectional study.Saudi medical journal · 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
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Coronary artery disease (CAD) is a leading cause of morbidity worldwide. Although non-invasive testing for CAD aims at reducing future disease burden, testing can often be associated with significant economic and other health-related costs, at both an individual and societal level. Although there is an established role for screening symptomatic patients for CAD, there is still considerable debate as to the best approach for individuals who are asymptomatic. In this review, various non-invasive tests commonly used in clinical practice will be discussed, including their potential utility, known limitations, and other considerations regarding their use. The use of such testing requires careful consideration of their diagnostic accuracy, availability, cost and patient-specific factors that may limit their utility and safety. Future recommendations for CAD screening, especially for lower-risk or asymptomatic individuals, should offer clinicians and patients some degree of flexibility and take into account the nuanced clinical approach that is often required to address the variability of each individual patient's biopsychosocial context and other factors relating to the suitability and accessibility of screening (e.g. financial cost and geographic location). Recommendations that are well suited to certain geographic locations or societal groups may be less appropriate for other populations, especially those that are marginalised, less well resourced or experiencing significant socioeconomic disadvantage. Screening for CAD should therefore endeavour to ensure equity and aim to improve outcomes in all patient groups, including those who are disadvantaged and most at risk.
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.