ArticleReviews in cardiovascular medicine2026
Comparison of Risk Assessment Strategies Recommended by the 2019 and 2024 European Society of Cardiology Guidelines in Patients With Stable Chest Pain: A Coronary Computed Tomography Angiography Study.
Article in Reviews 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: The European Society of Cardiology issued guidelines in 2019 and 2024 to help clinicians determine whether patients with stable chest pain (SCP) require advanced cardiovascular imaging testing (CIT). This study aimed to compare the safety and effectiveness of these evaluation strategies. Methods: A total of 17,612 symptomatic patients referred for coronary computed tomography angiography (CCTA) were included and followed over time. Each patient was classified into a deferral or referral group according to the 2019 and 2024 strategies, respectively. Obstructive coronary artery disease (CAD) was primarily defined as a lesion with ≥50% diameter stenosis on CCTA. Associations between major adverse cardiovascular events (MACEs) and the deferral and referral groups were evaluated using hazard ratios (HRs). Net reclassification improvement (NRI) and the number needed to test (NNT) to prevent unnecessary CIT were used to compare the two strategies. Results: Under the 2019 and 2024 strategies, 40% and 46% of patients, respectively, were categorized into deferral groups. These groups demonstrated a low prevalence of obstructive CAD (9.8% and 9.4%) and MACE (3.9% and 3.9%), suggesting that only limited intensive clinical follow-up was needed. Compared with the 2019 strategy, the 2024 strategy revealed a stronger association with MACEs (HR: 3.64 vs. 3.28) and a positive NRI (6.11%; Conclusions: The 2024 strategy maintained a safety profile comparable to that of the 2019 strategy while potentially reducing unnecessary CIT in patients presenting with SCP suggestive of chronic coronary syndrome (CCS).
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.