2014
DOI: 10.1016/j.crad.2014.03.023
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Dual-source CT versus single-source 64-section CT angiography for coronary artery disease: A meta-analysis

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1

Citation Types

0
1
1

Year Published

2015
2015
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
5

Relationship

0
5

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 5 publications
(2 citation statements)
references
References 64 publications
0
1
1
Order By: Relevance
“…CCTA is well known to yield many false positives, but the low positive predictive values in our study seems inferior to most other reports although the results are varying [ 24 ]. There may be several contributions to this.…”
Section: Discussioncontrasting
confidence: 93%
“…CCTA is well known to yield many false positives, but the low positive predictive values in our study seems inferior to most other reports although the results are varying [ 24 ]. There may be several contributions to this.…”
Section: Discussioncontrasting
confidence: 93%
“…[1] Considering the role of noninvasive cardiac imaging as a gatekeeper to the catheterization laboratory,[2] ischemia rather than the mere presence of atherosclerosis should prompt referral to invasive procedures. [3] Although coronary computed tomography angiography (CCTA) is recognized as a powerful diagnostic imaging tool that is capable of ruling out obstructive disease with unequalled certainty,[4] due to its nature, conventional CCTA is unable to assess the pathophysiological consequences of a given coronary stenosis. [5,6] In comparison to conventional CT, the exploitation of two different photon energy levels by dual energy CT (DECT) holds great promise for improved tissue characterization and CT-based myocardial perfusion imaging (MPI),[7] thus overcoming the limitations of conventional cardiac CT.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%