ArticleEuropean journal of radiology open2026
CAD-RADS 2.0: Comparison of methods for assessment of plaque burden.
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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objectives: To assess the agreement of the three methods of coronary plaque burden assessment approved by the Coronary Artery Disease-Reporting and Data System classification (CAD-RADS 2.0): coronary artery calcium (CAC) testing, segment involvement score (SIS), and visual estimate. Methods: Patients with stable chest pain who underwent coronary computed tomography angiography (CCTA) and showed signs of coronary artery disease were included in the current retrospective study. The CCTAs were independently evaluated by two board-certified radiologists. Differing results were resolved in consensus. Three separate estimates of plaque burden (P) were performed for each examination: P(CAC), P(SIS) and P(visual). Linearly weighted kappa was used to assess the agreement of the three methods. Results: The study included 132 patients (mean age 66.6 years, 68.2% male). The mean CAC score was 503.6 ± 1023.5 [SD]. CAD-RADS was 1 in 47/132 patients (35.6%), 2 in 40/132 patients (30.3%), 3 in 18/132 patients (13.6%), 4 in 24/132 cases (18.2%) and 5 in 3/132 cases (2.3%). Weighted Kappa values for method agreement were κ= 0.56 (95% CI: 0.48-0.65) for agreement between P(CAC) and P(SIS), κ= 0.67 (95% CI: 0.59-0.75) for agreement between P(CAC) and P(visual), and κ= 0.72 (95% CI: 0.64-0.80) for agreement between P(SIS) and P(visual), signifying moderate to substantial agreement. Conclusion: Results for plaque burden in CAD-RADS 2.0 are clearly influenced by the choice of assessment method. When reporting plaque burden in CAD-RADS 2.0, the method of assessment should be unequivocally named, as the three proposed methods are not interchangeable and describe different aspects of plaque burden.
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.