Original Article
Diagnostic performance of coronary computed tomography angiography versus exercise electrocardiography for coronary artery disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis
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.
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.
