ArticleEuropean journal of nuclear medicine and molecular imaging2010
Motion correction and myocardial perfusion SPECT using manufacturer provided software. Does it affect image interpretation?
Article in European journal of nuclear medicine and molecular imaging, 2010. 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, 15 citations in OpenAlex.
- Value of automatic patient motion detection and correction in myocardial perfusion imaging using a CZT-based SPECT camera.Journal of nuclear cardiology : official publication of the American Society of Nuclear Cardiology · 2018Article
- The effect of patient anxiety and depression on motion during myocardial perfusion SPECT imaging.BMC medical imaging · 2016Article
- Use of MRI to assess the prediction of heart motion with gross body motion in myocardial perfusion imaging by stereotracking of markers on the body surface.Medical physics · 2013Article
- Taking the perfect nuclear image: quality control, acquisition, and processing techniques for cardiac SPECT, PET, and hybrid imaging.Journal of nuclear cardiology : official publication of the American Society of Nuclear Cardiology · 2013Review
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 at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeMyocardial perfusion SPECT is an excellent tool for the assessment of coronary artery disease (CAD); however, it is affected by several artifacts, such as patient motion during acquisition, which increases false-positive rates. Therefore, the purpose of this work is to analyze changes in perfusion scores after motion-correction software application.
methodsThe population included 160 (99m)Tc-sestamibi CAD studies, divided into two groups: with and without perfusion defects, equally divided into subgroups according to movement during standard acquisition. A Siemens ECAM 180 was used for processing without correction and with automatic and manual e.soft 2.5 modalities. Visual interpretation as well as QPS software was compared using Pearson correlation and kappa agreement statistics.
resultsModerate agreement was observed between SPECT interpretations after motion correction versus the original report, according to the presence of perfusion defects. Manual correction using the software obtained the lowest agreements. Perfusion summed stress scores (SSS) correlation from different processing modalities versus non-corrected studies differed significantly independent of the degree of motion. Mean SSS in 40 patients with no motion was 3.9 + or - 3.9 when no correction was applied; with automatic correction was 8.8 + or - 10 (p = 0.03) and with manual correction was 3.1 + or - 3.5 (p = ns versus non-corrected). Automatic correction was better when applied to patients with mild to moderate motion. In those with mild or no motion, software overestimated or created new perfusion defects.
conclusionMotion-correction software must be used with caution when trying to optimize myocardial perfusion SPECT based on individual analysis. Acquisition should be always repeated in cases with severe motion and in no or mild motion it seems preferable to avoid correction.
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.