ArticleJournal of evaluation in clinical practice2025
Prevalence of CAC Scoring in Patients With Known Coronary Artery Disease: A Cohort Study on Choosing Wisely.
Article in Journal of evaluation in clinical practice, 2025. 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
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundCoronary artery calcium (CAC) scoring plays a role in risk assessment for presence of atherosclerotic coronary heart disease (CHD). Among patients with known CHD, CAC has little or no value. Performing CAC on CHD patients is discouraged by ACC/AHA guidelines and the Choosing Wisely campaign. The extent to which this occurs in clinical practice is not well described.
methodsWe evaluated all UF Health patients since 2011 with known CHD who later underwent CAC scoring. We used our Integrated Data Repository to identify the cohort based on International Classification of Diseases and Current Procedural Terminology codes. Data from patient demographics, past medical history, CAC scoring results, ordering provider information and subsequent clinical management were recorded into a custom REDCap database for qualitative analysis. No prespecified statistical plan was performed as the investigation was intended as descriptive.
resultsUpon reviewing all patients with known CHD, we found only 19 instances over 12 years where CAC scoring was ordered. Among these, 14 were men and 5 were women. A large percentage had a past medical history of DM (9, 47.4%) and hypertension (15, 78.9%) with a subclinical CHD diagnosis (17, 89.5%). Statin therapy was already initiated for 13 (68.4%). Most of the CAC scoring tests were ordered by cardiology attendings (10, 52.6%), and the justification most frequently provided was for risk stratification in patients with known CHD. Often (78.9%), there was no significant change in patient management or a slight alteration in medication therapy. One case resulted in percutaneous intervention.
conclusionsCAC scoring was rarely ordered among patients with known CHD over a 12-year span. Professional society efforts towards encouraging high-value care may wish to consider more high-impact recommendations in the future.
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.