SynthesisFrontiers in cardiovascular medicine2026
Sensitivity and specificity of speckle tracking echocardiography for coronary artery disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objectives: To determine the diagnostic performance of various myocardial strain parameters obtained by speckle-tracking echocardiography for detecting coronary artery disease. Methods: PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library were systematically searched from inception to 1 September 2025. Eligible studies included patients with suspected CAD, used CAG as the reference standard, and reported STE-derived strain parameters (e.g., GLS, GCS, GRS, GAS). Methodological quality was assessed via QUADAS-2, and meta-analyses were performed using a bivariate hierarchical random-effects model in STATA 18.0. Results: A total of 40 non-randomized studies involving 5,296 participants were included. The overall pooled sensitivity and specificity of STE for CAD were 77.3% (95% CI: 73.4-80.8%) and 75.0% (95% CI: 71.5-78.1%), respectively, with substantial heterogeneity across studies. Subgroup analyses suggested that global longitudinal strain (GLS) had more optimal performance (sensitivity: 78.6%, 95% CI: 74.5-82.2%; specificity: 76.3%, 95% CI: 72.7-79.7%), while global area strain (GAS) showed the highest sensitivity (83.3%, 95% CI: 74.5-89.5%) but moderate specificity (72.2%, 95% CI: 58.9-82.5%). Exercise stress STE demonstrated higher sensitivity than dobutamine stress or no stress protocols, and recovery-phase measurements showed promising but imprecise results. Deek's funnel plot indicated no significant publication bias ( Conclusion: STE exhibits moderate diagnostic accuracy for CAD, with GLS being the most robust parameter. Future research should focus on standardizing methodologies, validating strain thresholds, and integrating STE into multidisciplinary diagnostic pathways. Systematic Review Registration: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/view/CRD420251207466.
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.