SynthesisThe international journal of cardiovascular imaging2026
Comparison of SYNTAX scores between coronary CT angiography and invasive coronary angiography: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in The international journal of cardiovascular imaging, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Association of the Systemic Immune-Inflammation Index with CCTA-Derived SYNTAX Scores in Patients with Obstructive Coronary Artery Disease.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Accurate assessment of coronary lesion complexity is essential for guiding revascularization strategies in patients with coronary artery disease. The SYNTAX score, originally derived from invasive coronary angiography (ICA), plays a key role in clinical decision-making. With advancements in cardiac computed tomography angiography (CCTA), its potential as a non-invasive tool for SYNTAX scoring has gained interest, but discrepancies between modalities remain uncertain. To systematically compare SYNTAX scores obtained by CCTA versus ICA and evaluate their concordance, with implications for clinical decision-making. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of studies published between 2013 and 2024 comparing SYNTAX scores derived from CCTA and ICA in the same adult populations. Databases including PubMed, Embase, Scopus, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library were searched through January 2025. The primary outcome was the pooled standardized mean difference (Hedges' g) in SYNTAX scores between modalities. Risk of bias was assessed using QUADAS-2, and meta-regression explored potential sources of heterogeneity. Thirteen studies with a total of over 1,800 patients met inclusion criteria. The pooled analysis demonstrated a statistically significant underestimation of SYNTAX scores by CCTA compared to ICA (Hedges' g = - 0.121; 95% CI: -0.185 to - 0.056; p < 0.01). Heterogeneity was moderate (I² = 30.7%) after exclusion of one outlier. Meta-regression revealed no significant impact of publication year, scanner generation, or sample size on effect size. Several studies highlighted meaningful discrepancies in SYNTAX classification near critical decision thresholds (22 and 32). Funnel plot symmetry and Q-Q plot normality suggested minimal publication bias. CCTA systematically underestimates SYNTAX scores compared to ICA, which may impact treatment decisions in patients with complex coronary artery disease. While CCTA offers a promising non-invasive alternative, clinicians should interpret CCTA-derived SYNTAX scores with caution-particularly in borderline cases where therapeutic strategies may differ. Further standardization of scoring protocols and incorporation of functional imaging tools such as CT-FFR are warranted.
Indexed as
Identifiers
41636974What 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.