ArticleJournal of cardiovascular imaging2025
Diagnostic performance of cardiovascular magnetic resonance parametric mapping as per modified Lake Louise Criteria in acute myocarditis: an updated systematic review and meta-analysis.
Article in 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 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Observational
- Cardiovascular Imaging for the Early Detection of Cardiotoxicity from Emerging Cancer Therapies: Mechanistic Insights Across the Pediatric and Adult Spectrum.Journal of personalized medicine · 2026Review
- Review
- Diagnosing acute myocarditis in the emergency department-advancing cardiac MRI with a focus on low-field MR applications.Frontiers in radiology · 2025Review
- Case Report: Triple autoimmune overlap: rheumatoid arthritis, systemic lupus erythematosus, and hypereosinophilic asthma with systemic manifestations.Frontiers in immunology · 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundCardiovascular magnetic resonance mapping parameters-native T1 mapping, T2 mapping, and extracellular volume (ECV)-are key for diagnosing acute myocarditis under the modified 2018 Lake Louise Criteria (mLLC). This systematic review and meta-analysis evaluated their diagnostic performance and established optimal thresholds for acute myocarditis.
methodsWe reviewed articles published in the past decade utilizing parametric mapping for myocarditis diagnosis. Data on sensitivity, specificity, and area under the curve (AUC) were extracted. Quality assessment was conducted using the QUADAS-2 tool by two independent reviewers.
resultsEleven studies with 677 patients were included. Native T1 mapping showed sensitivity of 83%, specificity of 86%, diagnostic odds ratio (DOR) of 39, and an AUC of 0.91. T2 mapping had sensitivity of 81%, specificity of 86%, DOR of 25, and an AUC of 0.89. ECV demonstrated sensitivity of 71%, specificity of 81%, DOR of 13, and an AUC of 0.83. Mean control values were 1,039 ± 39.23 ms for native T1 mapping, 57 ± 5.18 ms for T2 mapping, and 31% ± 5.60% for ECV. Optimal thresholds were 1,021 ms for native T1 mapping, 52 ms for T2 mapping, and 28% for ECV based on receiver operating characteristic curves analysis based on 1.5-T scanner value. Native T1 mapping showed the highest diagnostic accuracy. Subgroup analysis found no significant sensitivity differences based on biopsy or clinical criteria.
conclusionsParametric mapping, particularly native T1, demonstrated strong diagnostic performance for acute myocarditis compared to T2 mapping and ECV within the modified 2018 Lake Louise Criteria framework. Incorporating these cardiovascular magnetic resonance parameters may improve diagnostic accuracy. Further research is recommended to refine these findings and optimize diagnostic strategies.
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.