ReviewJournal of the Saudi Heart Association2026
Pediatric Cardiac Imaging With Second- and Third-generation Dual Source CT Scanners: Radiation Dose, and Diagnostic Accuracy in Comparison With Echocardiography and MRI-A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.
Review in Journal of the Saudi Heart Association, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Article
- Strengthening the Evidence Base for Pediatric Cardiac CT: Statistical and Technological Considerations.Journal of the Saudi Heart Association · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objectives: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the diagnostic accuracy, imaging speed, radiation dose, and clinical utility of second- and third-generation dual source computed tomography scanners, in comparison with echocardiography and magnetic resonance imaging in diagnosing congenital heart disease in paediatric patients. Material and methods: A systematic literature search was conducted in PubMed, Embase, Scopus, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials from 1 January 2006 to 30 April 2025. Eligible studies included pediatric populations undergoing cardiac imaging with modern computed tomography scanners and compared outcomes against echocardiography or magnetic resonance imaging. Study selection followed PRISMA guidelines. Risk of bias was assessed using QUADAS-2 and ROBINS-I tools. Meta-analysis was performed for sensitivity outcomes, and pooled odds ratios were calculated using fixed-effects models. Results: Twenty-four studies met the inclusion criteria, comprising 3 prospective and 21 retrospective studies involving pediatric patients with congenital heart disease. Diagnostic accuracy of computed tomography ranged from 91% to 100%, with pooled sensitivity significantly favoring computed tomography over echocardiography (OR = 3.87; 95% CI: 2.78-5.38; P < 0.00001). Radiation doses were consistently low, ranging from 0.21 to 0.70 mSv with high-pitch and electrocardiogram-gated protocols. Several studies reported clinical impact, including changes in surgical planning and improved anatomical visualization. Risk of bias was moderate in most studies, primarily due to confounding and retrospective designs. Conclusions: Cardiac computed tomography demonstrates high diagnostic accuracy and provides detailed anatomical visualization in pediatric patients with congenital heart disease. It is particularly valuable for assessing extracardiac structures and complex vascular anatomy, where it may complement echocardiography and cardiac magnetic resonance imaging. While radiation exposure has been substantially reduced with newer-generation technologies, the interpretation of findings should consider the methodological limitations of included studies. Further prospective research is needed to strengthen the evidence base. PROSPERO registration: CRD420251042099.
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.