ReviewEuropean heart journal. Imaging methods and practice2026
Transthoracic echocardiography vs. cardiac magnetic resonance imaging for the diagnosis of left ventricular thrombus: an updated systematic review and diagnostic accuracy meta-analysis.
Review in European heart journal. Imaging methods and practice, 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
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Left ventricular thrombus (LVT) is a significant complication of myocardial infarction, associated with increased morbidity and mortality because of the risk of systemic embolization and stroke. Early detection of LVT is therefore important for the timely initiation of anticoagulation therapy. This systematic review and meta-analysis compared the diagnostic accuracy of cardiac magnetic resonance (CMR) with transthoracic echocardiography (TTE) for the detection of LVT. Following PRISMA guidelines, PubMed, Cochrane, CNKI, Scopus, LILACS, Web of Science, Google Scholar, EMBASE, and CINAHL were searched. Random-effects meta-analyses were performed in R (v3.4.3), with pooled proportions or area under the curve (AUC) values reported alongside 95% confidence intervals, and heterogeneity assessed using the
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.