ArticleEuropean journal of radiology open2026
Evaluation of patient-reported outcomes in coronary CT angiography versus invasive coronary angiography.
Article in European journal of radiology open, 2026. 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objectives: Coronary computed tomography angiography (CCTA) is the preferred non-invasive method for excluding coronary artery disease (CAD) in patients with an intermediate pre-test probability or stable CAD and often replaces invasive coronary angiography (ICA). However, patient acceptance and emotional responses to CCTA remain insufficiently studied. This study evaluated patient acceptance and emotional experiences during CCTA through patient-reported outcomes (PROs). Materials and methods: A total of 151 patients with a clinical indication for CCTA underwent standardized Dual-Source CT or Photon-Counting CT of the heart; 69 of these patients had previously undergone ICA. After the examination, a voluntary and anonymous PRO survey was completed using a standardized questionnaire comprising 27 items assessing emotions before and during the procedures. Responses were rated on 5-point Likert scales and visual analogue scales and compared with reported emotional responses to ICA and other semi- or non-invasive cardiac diagnostic procedures, including transesophageal echocardiography (TEE) and electrocardiography (ECG). Results: Overall, 82% (124/151) of patients rated CCTA as "very pleasant" or "pleasant", compared to 29% (20/69) for ICA. 18% (27/151) rated CCTA as "very unpleasant" or "unpleasant", versus 71% (49/69) for ICA. Mean examination comfort was significantly higher for CCTA (4.3/5) than for ICA (2.0/5; p < 0.001). Fear prior to examination was reported in 39.7% (60/151) for CCTA vs. 66.7% (46/69) for ICA (p < 0.001). Other non-invasive cardiac procedures were rated as mostly neutral compared to CCTA (range 2.2-3.3; 3 = neutral). Conclusion: CCTA is well tolerated and demonstrates significantly higher patient acceptance, with lower fear and discomfort, compared with ICA. Clinical relevance statement: This study underscores the clinical advantages of non-invasive CCTA beyond its established diagnostic value, highlighting its benefits with respect to patient comfort and compliance.
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.