SynthesisBMC medical imaging2026
Diagnostic accuracy of coronary CT angiography versus invasive coronary angiography for detecting coronary artery disease: a systematic review and Bayesian meta-analysis.
Synthesis in BMC medical imaging, 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
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe diagnostic performance of coronary computed tomography angiography, an emerging noninvasive modality used as an alternative to ICA for the assessment of coronary artery disease, is generally variable across studies and clinical settings.
objectiveThe objective of this study is to systematically assess the diagnostic accuracy of coronary computed tomography angiography (CCTA) in comparison with invasive coronary angiography (ICA) in the detection of anatomically significant CAD.
methodsA systematic review and meta-analysis were conducted according to PRISMA guidelines. A search of PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science for eligible studies through December 2025 was conducted. Studies were included if they reported CCTA diagnostic accuracy data with ICA as the reference standard. The risk of bias was assessed using QUADAS-2. The pooled sensitivity and specificity, along with the likelihood ratios and diagnostic odds ratio (DOR), were estimated using a Bayesian bivariate model. Summary receiver operating characteristic curves and Fagan nomograms were generated to assess overall performance and clinical utility.
resultsTwenty-seven studies encompassing 4461 patients were included in the quantitative synthesis. CCTA demonstrated high pooled sensitivity of 0.94 (95% posterior interval [PI] 0.892-0.969) and moderate specificity of 0.73 (95% PI 0.560-0.846). The pooled positive and negative likelihood ratios were 3.50 and 0.08, respectively, with a diagnostic odds ratio of 43.8, indicating strong overall discriminatory ability. Subgroup analyses showed higher accuracy in patients without prior coronary Intervention, while specificity was reduced in post-percutaneous coronary Intervention (PCI) or coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) populations. A negative CCTA markedly reduced the post-test probability of CAD, supporting its value as a rule-out test.
conclusionCCTA demonstrates high sensitivity and strong rule-out performance for anatomically significant CAD, particularly in appropriately selected low-to-intermediate-risk patients without prior coronary Intervention. However, its moderate specificity and reduced performance in complex post-PCI/CABG populations indicate that positive findings should be interpreted cautiously and may require confirmatory invasive or functional assessment. CLINICAL TRIAL NUMBER: Not applicable.
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.