Trial reportFrontiers in cardiovascular medicine2026
Assessing the diagnostic accuracy of cardisiography in the diagnosis of coronary heart disease: CSG-DR study (A pilot study).
Trial report in Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine, 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Early and accurate detection of coronary artery disease (CAD) remains a challenge in primary care, particularly in low- and middle-income countries where access to advanced diagnostic imaging is limited. A resting electrocardiogram (ECG) is widely available but has low sensitivity for detecting ischemia. Cardisiography (CSG), an artificial intelligence-enhanced vectorcardiography technique, offers a promising non-invasive alternative. Methods: This single-center, prospective, double-blinded pilot study enrolled 104 patients aged 40 and above with suspected CAD referred for coronary computerized tomography angiography (CCTA). All participants underwent ECG, CSG, and CCTA as the reference standard. Diagnostic accuracy was assessed using the CAD-RADS classification. Results: CCTA identified coronary lesions classified as CAD-RADS 1-3 in 29 patients (12, 11, and 6, respectively). CSG achieved an overall sensitivity of 96.5% (28/29), compared with 6.9% (2/29) for ECG. Sensitivity was 100% for CAD-RADS 1 and 3, and 91% for CAD-RADS 2. Diagnostic accuracy metrics are reported with 95% confidence intervals. Conclusion: In this pilot referral cohort, CSG demonstrated higher sensitivity than resting ECG for detecting coronary plaque. These preliminary findings suggest CSG may serve as a triage tool before CCTA or cardiology referral. Larger, multicenter studies are needed to validate its role and determine clinical utility. Clinical Trial Registration: https://conabios.gob.do/reglamento, identifier 034-2023.
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.