ArticleJournal of thoracic disease2026
Diagnostic performance between computed tomography angiography and high-sensitivity troponin for acute coronary syndrome in the emergency department: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Article in Journal of thoracic disease, 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Rapid and accurate identification of patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS) in the emergency department (ED) is no easy task. This study aimed to assess and compare the diagnostic utility of computed tomography angiography (CTA) and high-sensitivity troponin (hsTn) for patients with ACS in the ED. This meta-analysis focuses on patients presenting with acute chest pain. Methods: All relevant articles were retrieved from PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library up to October 2025. The methodological quality of the included studies was assessed using the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies 2 (QUADAS-2) tool. Pooled results were presented with 95% confidence intervals (CIs), and appropriate models were selected based on study heterogeneity. Diagnostic performance was expressed as the area under the curve (AUC). Heterogeneity of meta-analysis were evaluated through subgroup and sensitivity analysis. Results: A total of 21 studies (14 focused on CTA and 7 on hsTn) were included, involving 4,239 patients, predominantly at low-to-intermediate risk. Of these, 21% were diagnosed with ACS. The pooled sensitivity and specificity of CTA for diagnosing ACS were 0.94 (95% CI: 0.89-0.97) and 0.83 (95% CI: 0.73-0.90), respectively, with an AUC value of 0.96 (95% CI: 0.94-0.97). hsTn demonstrated pooled sensitivity and specificity of 0.84 (95% CI: 0.53-0.96) and 0.76 (95% CI: 0.55-0.89) for ACS diagnosis, with an AUC value of 0.86 (95% CI: 0.82-0.88). CTA exhibited higher diagnostic accuracy than hsTn (0.96 Conclusions: In the assessment of patients presenting with acute chest pain in the ED, CTA exhibited higher diagnostic accuracy than hsTn. This indicates that CTA may be more effective in ruling out the presence of ACS in patients with low to moderate risk. However, there was heterogeneity between studies and moderate specificity, which needs to be interpreted with caution.
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.