Evidence map›Paper›PMID 2643632›Full record

Trial reportThe Journal of clinical investigation1989

Precision and reproducibility of quantitative coronary angiography with applications to controlled clinical trials. A sampling study.

R H Selzer, C Hagerty, S P Azen, M Siebes, P Lee, A Shircore, D H Blankenhorn

Open access · bronzeAbstract readClinical Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in The Journal of clinical investigation, 1989. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed
3.5field-weighted citation impact, top 7% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

7 citing papers in PubMed, 58 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.

R H SelzerCalifornia Institute of Technology, Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena 91109.
C Hagerty
S P Azen
M Siebes
P Lee
A Shircore
D H Blankenhorn
Institute for Atherosclerosis Research · RUJet Propulsion Laboratory · USUniversity of Southern California · US

Funding

NATURAL HISTORY OF CORONARY BYPASS GRAFTSP01HL023619 · NHLBI · UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA · PI BLANKENHORN, DAVID H. · 1985 to 1990
–
NHLBI NIH HHS HL-23619
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Most computer methods that quantify coronary artery disease from angiograms are designed to analyze frames recorded during the end-diastolic portion of the cardiac cycle. The purpose of this study was to determine if end diastole is the best portion of the cardiac cycle to sample, or if other sampling schemes produce more precise and/or reproducible estimates of coronary disease. 20 cinecoronary angiograms were selected at random from a controlled clinical trial testing the effects of plasma lipid lowering on atherosclerosis. Sampling schemes included sequential and random sampling of two to five frames within the complete cardiac cycle, systole, and diastole. Three vessel measures and percent stenosis were evaluated for each sampling scheme. From the sampling experiment, it was determined that sampling sequentially end diastole yielded the most precise estimates (i.e., exhibiting minimum variability within a cycle) of the vessel measures. With regard to reproducibility (i.e., similar values across cycles), sampling randomly within the cycle was best. Overall, the average diameter of a vessel segment was the most precise and the most reproducible of the measures. Sample size calculations are given for each of these measures under the best sampling scheme.

Indexed as

AlgorithmsAngiocardiographyArteriosclerosisClinical Trials as TopicCoronary DiseaseHumansLipidsSampling StudiesLipids

Identifiers

PMID2643632
PMCPMC303710
OpenAlexW1995998387

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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 Socratic graph.