ArticleJournal of applied clinical medical physics2009
Evaluation of new data processing algorithms for planar gated ventriculography (MUGA).
Article in Journal of applied clinical medical physics, 2009. 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.
- Evaluating the accuracy of planar gated blood pool processing software using simulated patient studies.Heliyon · 2024Article
- Comparison of estimates of left ventricular ejection fraction obtained from gated blood pool imaging, different software packages and cameras.Cardiovascular journal of AfricaArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Before implementing one of two new LVEF radionuclide gated ventriculogram (MUGA) systems, the results from 315 consecutive parallel patient studies were evaluated. Each gamma-camera acquisition was simultaneously processed by semi-automatic Medasys Pinnacle and by fully-automatic and semi-automatic Philips nuclear medicine computer systems. The Philips systems yielded LVEF results within +/- 5 LVEF percentage points of the Medasys system in fewer than half of the studies. The remaining values were higher or lower than those from the long-used Medasys system. These differences might have changed cancer patient chemotherapy clinical decisions in 54 cases (17% of studies) for one of the systems. As a result, our institution elected not to implement either new system.
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.