ReviewEuropean heart journal. Imaging methods and practice2026
Cardiovascular magnetic resonance in contemporary guidelines: divergence between ESC and NICE across major cardiovascular diseases.
Review in European heart journal. Imaging methods and practice, 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Cardiovascular magnetic resonance (CMR) has transitioned from a specialist tool to a pivotal, multiparametric modality shaping diagnosis, risk, and therapy across major cardiovascular diseases; however, guideline positioning remains inconsistent between the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) and the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE). We performed a structured synthesis of contemporary ESC and NICE guidance (2015-25), mapping recommendation strength, evidential certainty, and pathway sequencing across heart failure, cardiomyopathies, ischaemic, and valvular disease, anchored to a curated PubMed dataset for transparency and reproducibility. Thirteen ESC and five NICE documents met the inclusion. This was a structured guideline review with narrative policy synthesis. ESC integrates CMR early with graded, disease-specific roles for morphology, tissue characterization, stress perfusion, and flow quantification; NICE adopts a more conservative, problem-solving stance, typically after echocardiography or CT triage. Concordance is strongest in heart failure and valvular disease, whereas divergence persists in cardiomyopathies and myocarditis, and in chronic coronary syndromes, where CT-first pathways dominate in NICE. These differences alter diagnostic yield, time-to-aetiology, radiation exposure, and downstream allocation to revascularization, electrophysiology, genetic testing, and surveillance, with measurable implications for equity within capacity-constrained services. Methodological drivers include ESC's emphasis on clinical utility once analytic validity is established vs. NICE's explicit cost-effectiveness modelling and deliverability thresholds. Aligning recommendations around shared outcomes, rapid-update pathways, and commissioning levers would reduce unwarranted variation while preserving fiscal responsibility. This review defines where and why CMR's value is realized or deferred in UK practice, and proposes pragmatic, evidence-linked strategies to harmonize guidance and accelerate mechanism-based care across populations, regions, and clinical acuity levels.
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.