Trial reportEuropean journal of nuclear medicine and molecular imaging2005
Diagnosis of Alzheimer's disease using brain perfusion SPECT and MR imaging: which modality achieves better diagnostic accuracy?
Trial report in European journal of nuclear medicine and molecular imaging, 2005. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Performance evaluation of a clinical SPECT system with multifocal collimator for brain studies.Medical physics · 2026Article
- The Legacy of the TTASAAN Report-Premature Conclusions and Forgotten Promises: A Review of Policy and Practice Part I.Frontiers in neurology · 2021Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThe purpose of this study was to compare the accuracy of MR imaging and brain perfusion single-photon emission tomography (SPECT) in diagnosing Alzheimer's disease (AD).
methodsThe transaxial section display of brain perfusion SPECT, three-dimensional stereotactic surface projection (3D-SSP) SPECT image sets, thin-section MR imaging of the hippocampus and perfusion MR imaging were evaluated in 66 subjects comprising 35 AD patients and 31 subjects without AD. SPECT and MR imaging were visually interpreted by two experts and two novices, and the diagnostic ability of each modality was evaluated by receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis.
resultsIn the experts' interpretations, there was no significant difference in the area under the ROC curve (Az) between 3D-SSP and thin-section MR imaging, whereas the Az of transaxial SPECT display was significantly lower than that of 3D-SSP (3D-SSP: 0.97, thin-section MR imaging: 0.96, transaxial SPECT: 0.91), and the Az of perfusion MR imaging was lowest (0.63). The sensitivity and specificity of each modality were, respectively, 80.0% and 96.8% for 3D-SSP, 77.1% and 96.8% for thin-section MR imaging, 60.0% and 93.5% for transaxial SPECT display and 34.3% and 100% for perfusion MR imaging. In the novices' interpretations, the Az, sensitivity and specificity of 3D-SSP were superior to those of thin-section MR imaging.
conclusionThin-section hippocampal MR imaging and 3D-SSP image sets had potentially equivalent value for the diagnosis of AD, and they were superior to transaxial SPECT display and perfusion MR imaging. For avoidance of the effect of interpreters' experience on image evaluation, 3D-SSP appears to be optimal.
Indexed as
Identifiers
15821961What 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.