Evidence mapPaperPMID 33407208Full record

SynthesisBMC medical imaging2021

Evaluation of non-invasive imaging parameters in coronary microvascular disease: a systematic review.

F Groepenhoff, R G M Klaassen, G B Valstar, S H Bots, N C Onland-Moret, H M Den Ruijter, T Leiner, A L M Eikendal

Erratum issuedOpen access · goldAbstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in BMC medical imaging, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 18 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
18citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
2.8field-weighted citation impact, top 10% 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

18 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 26 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Coronary microvascular dysfunction: a narrative review.Cardiovascular diagnosis and therapy · 2026
    Review
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Review
  13. MINOCA and INOCA: Role in Heart Failure.Current heart failure reports · 2023
    Review
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.

F Groepenhoff *Laboratory of Experimental Cardiology, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht University, Heidelberglaan 100, 3584 CX, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
R G M Klaassen *Laboratory of Experimental Cardiology, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht University, Heidelberglaan 100, 3584 CX, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
G B ValstarLaboratory of Experimental Cardiology, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht University, Heidelberglaan 100, 3584 CX, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
S H BotsLaboratory of Experimental Cardiology, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht University, Heidelberglaan 100, 3584 CX, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
N C Onland-MoretDepartment of Epidemiology, Julius Center for Health Sciences and Primary Care, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht University, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
H M Den RuijterLaboratory of Experimental Cardiology, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht University, Heidelberglaan 100, 3584 CX, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
T LeinerDepartment of Radiology, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht University, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
A L M EikendalLaboratory of Experimental Cardiology, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht University, Heidelberglaan 100, 3584 CX, Utrecht, The Netherlands. a.l.m.eikendal@umcutrecht.nl.
University Medical Center Utrecht · NLUtrecht University · NLUniversity Hospital Heidelberg · DE

Funding

Hartstichting CVON 2017-22 ARGUS
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundCoronary microvascular dysfunction (CMD) is an important underlying cause of angina pectoris. Currently, no diagnostic tool is available to directly visualize the coronary microvasculature. Invasive microvascular reactivity testing is the diagnostic standard for CMD, but several non-invasive imaging techniques are being evaluated. However, evidence on reported non-invasive parameters and cut-off values is limited. Thus, we aimed to provide an overview of reported non-invasive parameters and corresponding cut-off values for CMD.

methodsPubmed and EMBASE databases were systematically searched for studies enrolling patients with angina pectoris without obstructed coronary arteries, investigating at least one non-invasive imaging technique to quantify CMD. Methodological quality assessment of included studies was performed using QUADAS-2.

resultsThirty-seven studies were included. Ten cardiac magnetic resonance studies reported MPRI and nine positron emission tomography (PET) and transthoracic echocardiography (TTE) studies reported CFR. Mean MPRI ranged from 1.47 ± 0.36 to 2.01 ± 0.41 in patients and from 1.50 ± 0.47 to 2.68 ± 0.49 in controls without CMD. Reported mean CFR in PET and TTE ranged from 1.39 ± 0.31 to 2.85 ± 1.35 and 1.69 ± 0.40 to 2.40 ± 0.40 for patients, and 2.68 ± 0.83 to 4.32 ± 1.78 and 2.65 ± 0.65 to 3.31 ± 1.10 for controls, respectively.

conclusionsThis systematic review summarized current evidence on reported parameters and cut-off values to diagnose CMD for various non-invasive imaging modalities. In current clinical practice, CMD is generally diagnosed with a CFR less than 2.0. However, due to heterogeneity in methodology and reporting of outcome measures, outcomes could not be compared and no definite reference values could be provided.

Indexed as

Coronary CirculationMicrocirculationAngina PectorisCoronary Artery DiseaseEchocardiographyHumansMagnetic Resonance AngiographyPositron-Emission TomographySex FactorsCoronary flow reserveCoronary microvascular dysfunctionMyocardial perfusion reserveNon-invasive imagingReference values

Identifiers

PMID33407208
PMCPMC7789672
OpenAlexW3120160154

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.