GuidelineEuropean journal of nuclear medicine and molecular imaging2004
Myocardial perfusion scintigraphy: the evidence.
Guideline in European journal of nuclear medicine and molecular imaging, 2004. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 164 papers, 6 of them syntheses that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
164 citing papers in PubMed, 6 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 476 citations in OpenAlex.
- Systematic review and meta‑analysis of factors predicting postoperative lung function after lung cancer resection.Wideochirurgia i inne techniki maloinwazyjne = Videosurgery and other miniinvasive techniques · 2024Pooled it
- Advances in Myocardial Perfusion MR Imaging: Physiological Implications, the Importance of Quantitative Analysis, and Impact on Patient Care in Coronary Artery Disease.Magnetic resonance in medical sciences : MRMS : an official journal of Japan Society of Magnetic Resonance in Medicine · 2022Pooled it
- Diagnostic performance of stress myocardial perfusion imaging for coronary artery disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis.European radiology · 2012Pooled it
- Hybrid cardiac imaging: SPECT/CT and PET/CT. A joint position statement by the European Association of Nuclear Medicine (EANM), the European Society of Cardiac Radiology (ESCR) and the European Council of Nuclear Cardiology (ECNC).European journal of nuclear medicine and molecular imaging · 2011Guideline
- EANM/ESC guidelines for radionuclide imaging of cardiac function.European journal of nuclear medicine and molecular imaging · 2008Guideline
- Cost-effectiveness of myocardial perfusion imaging: a summary of the currently available literature.Journal of nuclear cardiology : official publication of the American Society of Nuclear CardiologyPooled it
- Influence of Cardiac CT based disease severity and clinical symptoms on the diagnostic performance of myocardial perfusion.The international journal of cardiovascular imaging · 2019Trial
- Trial
- Development and validation of a patient-tailored dose regime in myocardial perfusion imaging using conventional SPECT.Journal of nuclear cardiology : official publication of the American Society of Nuclear Cardiology · 2016Trial
- Accuracy of Computed Tomographic Angiography and Single-Photon Emission Computed Tomography-Acquired Myocardial Perfusion Imaging for the Diagnosis of Coronary Artery Disease.Circulation. Cardiovascular imaging · 2015Trial
- Development and validation of a patient-tailored dose regime in myocardial perfusion imaging using CZT-SPECT.Journal of nuclear cardiology : official publication of the American Society of Nuclear Cardiology · 2014Trial
- Validation of an automated method to quantify stress-induced ischemia and infarction in rest-stress myocardial perfusion SPECT.Journal of nuclear cardiology : official publication of the American Society of Nuclear Cardiology · 2014Trial
- Head to head comparisons of two modalities of perfusion adenosine stress echocardiography with simultaneous SPECT.Cardiovascular ultrasound · 2009Trial
- Impact of stress testing before percutaneous coronary intervention or medical management on outcomes of patients with persistent total occlusion after myocardial infarction: analysis from the occluded artery trial.American heart journal · 2009Trial
- Comparison of automated 4D-MSPECT and visual analysis for evaluating myocardial perfusion in coronary artery disease.The Kaohsiung journal of medical sciences · 2008Trial
- Gated myocardial perfusion single photon emission computed tomography in the clinical outcomes utilizing revascularization and aggressive drug evaluation (COURAGE) trial, Veterans Administration Cooperative study no. 424.Journal of nuclear cardiology : official publication of the American Society of Nuclear Cardiology · 2006Trial
- Prevalence of symptomatic and silent stress-induced perfusion defects in diabetic patients with suspected coronary artery disease referred for myocardial perfusion scintigraphy.European journal of nuclear medicine and molecular imaging · 2005Trial
- Influence of 99mTc-tetrofosmin SPECT myocardial perfusion imaging on the prediction of future adverse cardiac events.Journal of nuclear cardiology : official publication of the American Society of Nuclear CardiologyTrial
- Blunted heart rate response during dipyridamole stress SPECT is associated with cardiovascular outcomes in an all-comers cohort.BMC cardiovascular disorders · 2026Article
- Association of total Q/R ratio with myocardial scar in patients with chronic total occlusion.Postepy w kardiologii interwencyjnej = Advances in interventional cardiology · 2026Article
104 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
16 authors at 10 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This review summarises the evidence for the role of myocardial perfusion scintigraphy (MPS) in patients with known or suspected coronary artery disease. It is the product of a consensus conference organised by the British Cardiac Society, the British Nuclear Cardiology Society and the British Nuclear Medicine Society and is endorsed by the Royal College of Physicians of London and the Royal College of Radiologists. It was used to inform the UK National Institute of Clinical Excellence in their appraisal of MPS in patients with chest pain and myocardial infarction. MPS is a well-established, non-invasive imaging technique with a large body of evidence to support its effectiveness in the diagnosis and management of angina and myocardial infarction. It is more accurate than the exercise ECG in detecting myocardial ischaemia and it is the single most powerful technique for predicting future coronary events. The high diagnostic accuracy of MPS allows reliable risk stratification and guides the selection of patients for further interventions, such as revascularisation. This in turn allows more appropriate utilisation of resources, with the potential for both improved clinical outcomes and greater cost-effectiveness. Evidence from modelling and observational studies supports the enhanced cost-effectiveness associated with MPS use. In patients presenting with stable or acute chest pain, strategies of investigation involving MPS are more cost-effective than those not using the technique. MPS also has particular advantages over alternative techniques in the management of a number of patient subgroups, including women, the elderly and those with diabetes, and its use will have a favourable impact on cost-effectiveness in these groups. MPS is already an integral part of many clinical guidelines for the investigation and management of angina and myocardial infarction. However, the technique is underutilised in the UK, as judged by the inappropriately long waiting times and by comparison with the numbers of revascularisations and coronary angiograms performed. Furthermore, MPS activity levels in this country fall far short of those in comparable European countries, with about half as many scans being undertaken per year. Currently, the number of MPS studies performed annually in the UK is 1,200/million population/year. We estimate the real need to be 4,000/million/year. The current average waiting time is 20 weeks and we recommend that clinically appropriate upper limits of waiting time are 6 weeks for routine studies and 1 week for urgent studies.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.