↓ Skip to main content

Danish study of Non-Invasive testing in Coronary Artery Disease (Dan-NICAD): study protocol for a randomised controlled trial

Overview of attention for article published in Trials, May 2016
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
44 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
71 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Danish study of Non-Invasive testing in Coronary Artery Disease (Dan-NICAD): study protocol for a randomised controlled trial
Published in
Trials, May 2016
DOI 10.1186/s13063-016-1388-z
Pubmed ID
Authors

Louise Nissen, Simon Winther, Christin Isaksen, June Anita Ejlersen, Lau Brix, Grazina Urbonaviciene, Lars Frost, Lene Helleskov Madsen, Lars Lyhne Knudsen, Samuel Emil Schmidt, Niels Ramsing Holm, Michael Maeng, Mette Nyegaard, Hans Erik Bøtker, Morten Bøttcher

Abstract

Coronary computed tomography angiography (CCTA) is an established method for ruling out coronary artery disease (CAD). Most patients referred for CCTA do not have CAD and only approximately 20-30 % of patients are subsequently referred to further testing by invasive coronary angiography (ICA) or non-invasive perfusion evaluation due to suspected obstructive CAD. In cases with severe calcifications, a discrepancy between CCTA and ICA often occurs, leading to the well-described, low-diagnostic specificity of CCTA. As ICA is cost consuming and involves a risk of complications, an optimized algorithm would be valuable and could decrease the number of ICAs that do not lead to revascularization. The primary objective of the Dan-NICAD study is to determine the diagnostic accuracy of cardiac magnetic resonance imaging (CMRI) and myocardial perfusion scintigraphy (MPS) as secondary tests after a primary CCTA where CAD could not be ruled out. The secondary objective includes an evaluation of the diagnostic precision of an acoustic technology that analyses the sound of coronary blood flow. It may potentially provide better stratification prior to CCTA than clinical risk stratification scores alone. Dan-NICAD is a multi-centre, randomised, cross-sectional trial, which will include approximately 2,000 patients without known CAD, who were referred to CCTA due to a history of symptoms suggestive of CAD and a low-risk to intermediate-risk profile, as evaluated by a cardiologist. Patient interview, sound recordings, and blood samples are obtained in connection with the CCTA. All patients with suspected obstructive CAD by CCTA are randomised to either stress CMRI or stress MPS, followed by ICA with fractional flow reserve (FFR) measurements. Obstructive CAD is defined as an FFR below 0.80 or as high-grade stenosis (>90 % diameter stenosis) by visual assessment. Diagnostic performance is evaluated as sensitivity, specificity, predictive values, likelihood ratios, and C statistics. Enrolment commenced in September 2014 and is expected to be complete in May 2016. Dan-NICAD is designed to assess whether a secondary perfusion examination after CCTA could safely reduce the number of ICAs where revascularization is not required. The results are expected to add knowledge about the optimal algorithm for diagnosing CAD. Clinicaltrials.gov identifier, NCT02264717 . Registered on 26 September 2014.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 71 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 71 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 12 17%
Student > Bachelor 9 13%
Other 8 11%
Student > Ph. D. Student 8 11%
Student > Master 5 7%
Other 10 14%
Unknown 19 27%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 29 41%
Nursing and Health Professions 6 8%
Engineering 5 7%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 3 4%
Psychology 2 3%
Other 5 7%
Unknown 21 30%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 30 May 2016.
All research outputs
#21,157,205
of 25,986,827 outputs
Outputs from Trials
#26
of 45 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#270,423
of 353,750 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Trials
#27
of 28 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,986,827 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 10th percentile – i.e., 10% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 45 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 5.0. This one scored the same or higher as 19 of them.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 353,750 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 12th percentile – i.e., 12% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 28 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 3rd percentile – i.e., 3% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.