Xinxin Yin1, Jiali Wang2, Wen Zheng2, Jingjing Ma2, Panpan Hao3, Yuguo Chen2. 1. Department of Emergency, Qilu Hospital, Shandong University, Jinan 250012, China;; School of Clinical Medicine, Taishan Medical University, Taian 271016, China; 2. Department of Emergency, Qilu Hospital, Shandong University, Jinan 250012, China;; Chest Pain Center, Qilu Hospital, Shandong University, Jinan 250012, China;; Key Laboratory of Emergency and Critical Care Medicine of Shandong Province, Qilu Hospital, Shandong University, Jinan 250012, China;; Key Laboratory of Cardiovascular Remodeling & Function Research, Chinese Ministry of Education & Chinese Ministry of Public Health, Qilu Hospital, Shandong University, Jinan 250012, China. 3. Key Laboratory of Cardiovascular Remodeling & Function Research, Chinese Ministry of Education & Chinese Ministry of Public Health, Qilu Hospital, Shandong University, Jinan 250012, China.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Both coronary computed tomography angiography (CCTA) and exercise electrocardiography (ExECG) are non-invasive testing methods for the evaluation of coronary artery disease (CAD). However, there was controversy on the diagnostic performance of these methods due to the limited data in each single study. Therefore, we performed a meta-analysis to address these issues. METHODS: We searched PubMed and Embase databases up to May 22, 2015. Two authors identified eligible studies, extracted data and accessed quality. Pooled estimation of sensitivity, specificity, positive likelihood ratio (PLR), negative likelihood ratio (NLR), diagnostic odds ratio (DOR), summary receiver-operating characteristic curve (SROC) and the area under curve (AUC) of CCTA and ExECG for the diagnosis of CAD were calculated using Stata, Meta-Disc and Review Manager statistical software. RESULTS: Seven articles were included. Pooled sensitivity of CCTA and ExECG were 0.98 [95% confidence intervals (CIs): 0.95-0.99] and 0.66 (95% CIs: 0.59-0.72); pooled specificity of CCTA and ExECG were 0.84 (95% CIs: 0.81-0.87) and 0.75 (95% CIs: 0.71-0.79); pooled DOR of CCTA and ExECG were 110.24 (95% CIs: 35.07-346.55) and 6.28 (95% CIs: 2.06-19.13); and AUC of CCTA and ExECG were 0.9950±0.0046 and 0.7727±0.0638, respectively. There is no heterogeneity caused by threshold effect in CCTA or ExECG analysis. The Deeks' test showed no potential publication bias (P=0.17). CONCLUSIONS: CCTA has better diagnostic performance than ExECG in the evaluation of CAD, which can provide a better solution for the clinical problem of the diagnosis for CAD.
BACKGROUND: Both coronary computed tomography angiography (CCTA) and exercise electrocardiography (ExECG) are non-invasive testing methods for the evaluation of coronary artery disease (CAD). However, there was controversy on the diagnostic performance of these methods due to the limited data in each single study. Therefore, we performed a meta-analysis to address these issues. METHODS: We searched PubMed and Embase databases up to May 22, 2015. Two authors identified eligible studies, extracted data and accessed quality. Pooled estimation of sensitivity, specificity, positive likelihood ratio (PLR), negative likelihood ratio (NLR), diagnostic odds ratio (DOR), summary receiver-operating characteristic curve (SROC) and the area under curve (AUC) of CCTA and ExECG for the diagnosis of CAD were calculated using Stata, Meta-Disc and Review Manager statistical software. RESULTS: Seven articles were included. Pooled sensitivity of CCTA and ExECG were 0.98 [95% confidence intervals (CIs): 0.95-0.99] and 0.66 (95% CIs: 0.59-0.72); pooled specificity of CCTA and ExECG were 0.84 (95% CIs: 0.81-0.87) and 0.75 (95% CIs: 0.71-0.79); pooled DOR of CCTA and ExECG were 110.24 (95% CIs: 35.07-346.55) and 6.28 (95% CIs: 2.06-19.13); and AUC of CCTA and ExECG were 0.9950±0.0046 and 0.7727±0.0638, respectively. There is no heterogeneity caused by threshold effect in CCTA or ExECG analysis. The Deeks' test showed no potential publication bias (P=0.17). CONCLUSIONS:CCTA has better diagnostic performance than ExECG in the evaluation of CAD, which can provide a better solution for the clinical problem of the diagnosis for CAD.
Authors: Raymond J Gibbons; Daniel W Jones; Timothy J Gardner; Larry B Goldstein; James H Moller; Clyde W Yancy Journal: Circulation Date: 2008-09-26 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: Kristian A Ovrehus; Jesper K Jensen; Hans F Mickley; Henrik Munkholm; Morten Bøttcher; Hans E Bøtker; Bjarne L Nørgaard Journal: Am J Cardiol Date: 2010-03-15 Impact factor: 2.778
Authors: Jawdat Abdulla; Steen Z Abildstrom; Ole Gotzsche; Erik Christensen; Lars Kober; Christian Torp-Pedersen Journal: Eur Heart J Date: 2007-11-02 Impact factor: 29.983
Authors: E Maffei; A Palumbo; C Martini; A Cuttone; F Ugo; E Emiliano; A Menozzi; L Vignali; V Brambilla; P Coruzzi; A Weustink; N Mollet; D Ardissino; C Reverberi; G Crisi; F Cademartiri Journal: Radiol Med Date: 2009-11-09 Impact factor: 3.469
Authors: Gabija Pundziute; Joanne D Schuijf; Jacob M van Werkhoven; Gaetano Nucifora; Ernst E van der Wall; J Wouter Jukema; Jeroen J Bax Journal: Coron Artery Dis Date: 2009-06 Impact factor: 1.439
Authors: Penny F Whiting; Anne W S Rutjes; Marie E Westwood; Susan Mallett; Jonathan J Deeks; Johannes B Reitsma; Mariska M G Leeflang; Jonathan A C Sterne; Patrick M M Bossuyt Journal: Ann Intern Med Date: 2011-10-18 Impact factor: 25.391
Authors: Sara Gaur; Kristian Altern Øvrehus; Damini Dey; Jonathon Leipsic; Hans Erik Bøtker; Jesper Møller Jensen; Jagat Narula; Amir Ahmadi; Stephan Achenbach; Brian S Ko; Evald Høj Christiansen; Anne Kjer Kaltoft; Daniel S Berman; Hiram Bezerra; Jens Flensted Lassen; Bjarne Linde Nørgaard Journal: Eur Heart J Date: 2016-01-12 Impact factor: 29.983