ReviewCureus2025
Diagnostic Accuracy of Computed Tomography (CT) Coronary Angiography Compared to Invasive Coronary Angiography for Detecting Coronary Artery Disease: A Systematic Review.
Review in Cureus, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Diagnostic accuracy of coronary CT angiography versus invasive coronary angiography for detecting coronary artery disease: a systematic review and Bayesian meta-analysis.BMC medical imaging · 2026Pooled it
- Research on Denoising Methods for Magnetocardiography Signals in a Non-Magnetic Shielding Environment.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Evaluation of the Relationship Between Aortic Stiffness and Elasticity and Left Ventricular Functional Parameters in Patients with ANOCA Using CCTA.International journal of general medicine · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Coronary artery disease (CAD) is a significant cause of morbidity and mortality worldwide, and the prevalence is continually rising. Invasive coronary angiography (ICA) has been considered the gold standard in CAD diagnosis as it offers precise information about the presence and severity of coronary artery blockages. However, computed tomography coronary angiography (CTCA) has emerged as a preferred noninvasive imaging technique from the viewpoint of patient risk because it provides high-resolution coronary images. This systematic review aims to compare the diagnostic accuracy of CTCA with ICA to diagnose CAD among patients. This systematic literature review involved a database search of PubMed, Medline, and Cochrane Library for articles from 2014 to 2024. After screening 650 records, removing duplicates, and assessing 63 reports for eligibility, five studies were included in the final analysis. Diagnostic accuracy parameters like sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), and negative predictive value (NPV) were calculated. The study found that CTCA demonstrated high to very high sensitivity and specificity in detecting CAD. It minimizes the number of such procedures and related consequences; other trials showed a significant decrease in myocardial infarctions over an extended period. CTCA appears reliable as an alternative to ICA, proving equally effective in low- to intermediate-risk patients but less effective in high-risk cases, where ICA remains necessary. CTCA provides an innovative, less invasive diagnostic solution for low- to moderate-risk patients, consistent with patient-directed care. However, due to the emphasis on its relative strengths, ICA remains relevant even today for high-risk individuals, especially those requiring the most urgent intervention. More recent developments and large-scale investigations are essential to optimize the use of CTCA in clinical practice and clarify its role in CAD treatment.
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.