ArticleThe Canadian journal of cardiology2006
Treating the right patient at the right time: access to cardiovascular nuclear imaging.
Article in The Canadian journal of cardiology, 2006. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Current status of nuclear cardiology in Japan: Ongoing efforts to improve clinical standards and to establish evidence.Journal of nuclear cardiology : official publication of the American Society of Nuclear Cardiology · 2015Review
- A commentary on access to cardiovascular services: nursing roles and initiatives.The Canadian journal of cardiology · 2008Article
- Treating the right patient at the right time: Access to echocardiography in Canada.The Canadian journal of cardiology · 2006Article
- Sixty-four-slice computed tomography coronary angiography compared with myocardial perfusion scintigraphy for the diagnosis of functionally significant coronary stenoses in patients with a low to intermediate likelihood of coronary artery disease.Journal of nuclear cardiology : official publication of the American Society of Nuclear CardiologyArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 6 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Cardiovascular nuclear medicine uses agents labelled with radioisotopes that can be imaged with cameras (single-photon emission tomography [SPECT] or positron emission tomography [PET]) capable of detecting gamma photons to show physiological parameters such as myocardial perfusion, myocardial viability or ventricular function. There is a growing body of literature providing guidelines for the appropriate use of these techniques, but there are little data regarding the appropriate timeframe during which the procedures should be accessed. An expert working group composed of cardiologists and nuclear medicine specialists conducted an Internet search to identify current wait times and recommendations for wait times for a number of cardiac diagnostic tools and procedures, including cardiac catheterization and angioplasty, bypass grafting and vascular surgery. These data were used to estimate appropriate wait times for cardiovascular nuclear medicine procedures. The estimated times were compared with current wait times in each province. Wait time benchmarks were developed for the following: myocardial perfusion with either exercise or pharmacological stress and SPECT or PET imaging; myocardial viability assessment with either fluorodeoxyglucose SPECT or PET imaging, or thallium-201 SPECT imaging; and radionuclide angiography. Emergent, urgent and nonurgent indications were defined for each clinical examination. In each case, appropriate wait time benchmarks were defined as within 24 h for emergent indications, within three days for urgent indications and within 14 days for nonurgent indications. Substantial variability was noted from province to province with respect to access for these procedures. For myocardial perfusion imaging, mean emergent/urgent wait times varied from four to 24 days, and mean nonurgent wait times varied from 15 to 158 days. Only Ontario provided limited access to viability assessment, with fluorodeoxyglucose available in one centre. Mean emergent/urgent wait times for access to viability assessment with thallium-201 SPECT imaging varied from three to eight days, with the exception of Newfoundland, where an emergent/urgent assessment was not available; mean nonurgent wait times varied from seven to 85 days. Finally, for radionuclide angiography, mean emergent/urgent wait times varied from two to 20 days, and nonurgent wait times varied from eight to 36 days. Again, Newfoundland centres were unable to provide emergent/urgent access. The publication of these data and proposed wait times as national targets is a step toward the validation of these recommendations through consultation with clinicians caring for cardiac patients across Canada.
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.