ReviewJournal of clinical medicine2023
The Non-Invasive Diagnosis of Chronic Coronary Syndrome: A Focus on Stress Computed Tomography Perfusion and Stress Cardiac Magnetic Resonance.
Review in Journal of clinical medicine, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- The Diagnostic and Prognostic Impact of Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance in Ischemic Heart Disease: A Systematic Review.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Review
- Advancements in Cardiac CT Imaging: The Era of Artificial Intelligence.Echocardiography (Mount Kisco, N.Y.) · 2024Review
- Impact of Coronary Microvascular Dysfunction in Takotsubo Syndrome: Cause, Consequence or Both?Reviews in cardiovascular medicine · 2024Review
- Coronary microvascular dysfunction in autoimmune rheumatic diseases: beyond coronary flow velocity reserve.Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 2024Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
14 authors at 7 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Coronary artery disease is still a major cause of death and morbidity worldwide. In the setting of chronic coronary disease, demonstration of inducible ischemia is mandatory to address treatment. Consequently, scientific and technological efforts were made in response to the request for non-invasive diagnostic tools with better sensitivity and specificity. To date, clinicians have at their disposal a wide range of stress-imaging techniques. Among others, stress cardiac magnetic resonance (S-CMR) and computed tomography perfusion (CTP) techniques both demonstrated their diagnostic efficacy and prognostic value in clinical trials when compared to other non-invasive ischemia-assessing techniques and invasive fractional flow reserve measurement techniques. Standardized protocols for both S-CMR and CTP usually imply the administration of vasodilator agents to induce hyperemia and contrast agents to depict perfusion defects. However, both methods have their own limitations, meaning that optimizing their performance still requires a patient-tailored approach. This review focuses on the characteristics, drawbacks, and future perspectives of these two techniques.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.