SynthesisOpen heart2025
Prognostic relevance of a false-positive stress echocardiography response: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Open heart, 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundStress echocardiography is a widely available and used imaging modality in the assessment of ischaemic heart disease (IHD) and preoperative risk stratification. Despite the higher rate of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) observed in positive stress echocardiography results, the prognostic relevance of a false-positive (FP) stress echocardiogram is unclear.
methodsThe authors searched Medline, Embase, CINAHL, Web of Science, The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, EBSCO Open Dissertation and Clinicaltrials.gov from inception to 15 April 2024, for studies evaluating the prognostic relevance of a FP stress echocardiogram response in patients with suspected or known IHD. Primary outcomes included the occurrence of MACE within the studied follow-up duration. Random effects meta-analysis was performed to evaluate the direction of effect and allow comparisons between FP, true-positive and true-negative stress echocardiography results.
resultsA total of five studies were included with 2426 patients (mean age 56-66 years, 60.2% males). In total, there were 737 (30.3%) FP stress echocardiogram results. MACE occurred in 274 participants, of which 79 (28.8%) occurred within the FP stress echocardiography group. Meta-analysis from three studies demonstrated more MACE outcomes in patients with a true positive in comparison to a FP stress echocardiography result (RR 1.64, 95% CI: 1.22 to 2.20). Two studies reported increased MACE outcomes in patients with a FP result when compared with a true negative result.
conclusionsAn FP stress echocardiogram result is common and frequently associated with patients who have a low pre-test probability for IHD. FP results are not associated with increased incidence of MACE when compared with true positive results; however, there is insufficient evidence to establish whether FP results in dobutamine stress echocardiography identify a cohort of high-risk patients in comparison to true negative results. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD 42024526741.
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.