"Mismatch" in regional myocardial perfusion defects during exercise and pharmacologic vasodilation: a noninvasive marker of epicardial vasomotor dysfunction?

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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

1. Feasibility and diagnostic accuracy of exercise treadmill nitrogen-13 ammonia PET myocardial perfusion imaging of obese patients.Journal of nuclear cardiology : official publication of the American Society of Nuclear Cardiology · 2015
   Article
2. Exercise PET: More insight or more complex?Journal of nuclear cardiology : official publication of the American Society of Nuclear Cardiology · 2015
   Article
3. Noninvasive stress testing of myocardial perfusion defects: head-to-head comparison of thallium-201 SPECT to MRI perfusion.Journal of nuclear cardiology : official publication of the American Society of Nuclear Cardiology
   Article

Corrections and comments

• Comment on
  Larger perfusion defects with exercise compared with dipyridamole SPECT (exercise-dipyridamole mismatch) may reflect differences in epicardial and microvascular coronary dysfunction: when the stressor matters.

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Funding

Abstract

PubMed holds no abstract for this paper.

Indexed as