Imaging Coronary Anatomy and Reducing Myocardial Infarction.

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

6 citing papers in PubMed.

1. Integrating Invasive and Noninvasive Imaging for Coronary Atherosclerosis: A Systematic Review With Pragmatic Algorithms From Anatomy to Physiology.Cureus · 2026
   Review
2. SCOT-HEART trial: reshuffling our approach to stable ischemic heart disease.The British journal of radiology · 2020
   Article
3. TESTING OUR TESTS: THE EVOLUTION OF EVIDENCE FOR CARDIAC IMAGING.Transactions of the American Clinical and Climatological Association · 2020
   Article
4. Subclinical Atherosclerosis Imaging in People Living with HIV.Journal of clinical medicine · 2019
   Review
5. The SCOT-HEART Trial. What we observed and what we learned.Journal of cardiovascular computed tomography
   Article
6. Cardiac Computed Tomography for Comprehensive Coronary Assessment: Beyond Diagnosis of Anatomic Stenosis.Methodist DeBakey cardiovascular journal
   Review

Corrections and comments

• Comment on
  Coronary CT Angiography and 5-Year Risk of Myocardial Infarction.2018

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

Abstract

PubMed holds no abstract for this paper.

Indexed as