ReviewClinical cardiology2026
Cardiac MRI Across ESC Guidance in the Last Decade.
Review in Clinical cardiology, 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
Abstract
aimsCardiovascular magnetic resonance (CMR) has shifted from a problem-solving modality to a foundational, first-line test in European Society of Cardiology (ESC) guidance. This review synthesises how CMR is positioned within ESC guidelines (2015-2025) and allied EACVI/EHRA statements, emphasizing its decision-shaping role through accurate biventricular volumetry, tissue characterization (late gadolinium enhancement [LGE], T1/T2 mapping, extracellular volume [ECV]), and flow quantification (phase-contract, with emerging 4D-flow).
methodsWe performed a structured narrative review of adult ESC clinical practice guidelines and allied expert statements (January 2015-December 2025) containing explicit CMR recommendations. Documents were identified via society portals and PubMed, excluding pediatric guidance and non-recommendation technical notes. Two independent reviewers extracted data on clinical context, CMR role, and recommendation Class/Level of Evidence, resolving discrepancies by consensus.
resultsThe search identified 13 ESC guidelines-spanning coronary syndromes, sports cardiology, cardio-oncology, myocarditis, and valvular disease-and 13 supporting statements. The data demonstrate a progressive elevation of CMR to a strongly favored investigation (commonly Class I/IIa, Level B/C) in scenarios where precision imaging alters management. Allied expert statements standardize protocols, reference ranges, and quantification methods to facilitate consistent clinical implementation.
conclusionESC guidelines have repositioned CMR from a tool of last resort to a cornerstone of cardiovascular diagnostics. Its adjudicatory role leverages tissue characterization and quantification to resolve clinical scenarios with high diagnostic uncertainty, including MINOCA, suspected cardiomyopathy, sports participation after myocarditis, and complex valvular disease. Expert statements provide the practical framework for implementation, supporting the progressive integration of CMR into clinical pathways.
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.