ReviewCardiology research and practice2026
Applicability of Stress Cardiac Magnetic Resonance Imaging in Patients With Cardiac Implantable Devices: A Systematic Review.
Review in Cardiology research and practice, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Applicability of Stress Cardiac Magnetic Resonance Imaging in Patients With Cardiac Implantable Devices: A Systematic Review.Cardiology research and practice · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: The utilization of stress perfusion cardiac magnetic resonance (CMR) in patients with cardiac implantable electronic devices (CIEDs) is still limited. Methods: The study was registered in the Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO) with ID CRD42023457308. PubMed, Scopus, Embase, Web of Science, ProQuest, and CINAHL databases were searched using the Mesh and related terms of CMR imaging, stress, and CIEDs. Results: Out of the 1695 papers we found, eight met our inclusion criteria. We reviewed the included studies and provided a concluding remark concerning (a) image quality; (b) CMR compatibility, scanner, and safety; (c) device protocols and exclusion criteria; (d) vasodilator choices, effects, and safety; and (e) clinical outcomes. Conclusion: This study has demonstrated a positive trend in the utilization of stress CMR in MR-conditional devices. However, the review has identified multiple research gaps that warrant further investigation.
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.