Multislice spiral computed tomography has shortcomings difficult to overcome in daily practice and, at the more clinically relevant per-patient analysis, continues to have moderate specificity in patients with high prevalence of CAD. Studies evaluating the diagnostic performance of the newest generation of MSCT, including patients with low to moderate CAD prevalence, will be critical in establishing the clinical role of this emerging technology as an alternative to CA.

AimEvaluation of the diagnostic accuracy of stress perfusion cardiovascular magnetic resonance for the diagnosis of significant obstructive coronary artery disease (CAD) through meta-analysis of the available data.MethodologyOriginal articles in any language published before July 2009 were selected from available databases (MEDLINE, Cochrane Library and BioMedCentral) using the combined search terms of magnetic resonance, perfusion, and coronary angiography; with the exploded term coronary artery disease. Statistical analysis was only performed on studies that: (1) used a [greater than or equal to] 1.5 Tesla MR scanner; (2) employed invasive coronary angiography as the reference standard for diagnosing significant obstructive CAD, defined as a [greater than or equal to] 50% diameter stenosis; and (3) provided sufficient data to permit analysis.ResultsFrom the 263 citations identified, 55 relevant original articles were selected. Only 35 fulfilled all of the inclusion criteria, and of these 26 presented data on patient-based analysis. The overall patient-based analysis demonstrated a sensitivity of 89% (95% CI: 88-91%), and a specificity of 80% (95% CI: 78-83%). Adenosine stress perfusion CMR had better sensitivity than with dipyridamole (90% (88-92%) versus 86% (80-90%), P = 0.022), and a tendency to a better specificity (81% (78-84%) versus 77% (71-82%), P = 0.065).ConclusionStress perfusion CMR is highly sensitive for detection of CAD but its specificity remains moderate.

Many patients with schizophrenia have negative symptoms, but their evaluation is a challenge. Thus, standardized assessments are needed to facilitate identification of these symptoms. Many tools have been developed, but most are based on observer ratings. Self-evaluation can provide an additional outcome measure and allow patients to be more engaged in their treatment. The aim of this study was to present a novel tool, Self-evaluation of Negative Symptoms (SNS), and demonstrate its validity. Forty-nine patients with schizophrenia and schizoaffective disorders according to DSM-5 were evaluated. Cronbach's coefficient (α = 0.867) showed good internal consistency. Factor analysis extracted 2 factors (apathy and emotional) that accounted for 75.2% of the variance. The SNS significantly correlated with the Scale of Assessment of Negative Symptoms (r= 0.628) and the Clinician Global Impression on the severity of negative symptoms (r= 0.599), supporting good convergent validity. SNS scores did not correlate with level of insight (r= 0.008), Parkinsonism (r= 0.175) or Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale positive subscores (r= 0.253), which indicates good discriminant validity. The intrasubject reliability of the SNS revealed excellent intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC = 0.942). Taken together, the results show that the SNS has good psychometric properties and satisfactory acceptance by patients. The study also demonstrates the ability of patients with schizophrenia to accurately report their own experiences. Self-assessments of negative symptoms should be more widely employed in clinical practice because they may allow patients with schizophrenia to develop appropriate coping strategies.

http://radiology.rsnajnls.org/cgi/content/full/2453061899/DC1.