ArticleJournal of nuclear cardiology : official publication of the American Society of Nuclear Cardiology2010
Interassay reproducibility of myocardial perfusion gated SPECT in patients with atrial fibrillation.
Article in Journal of nuclear cardiology : official publication of the American Society of Nuclear Cardiology, 2010. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Impact of cardiac size on diagnostic performance of single-photon emission computed tomography myocardial perfusion imaging: insights from the REgistry of Fast Myocardial Perfusion Imaging with NExt generation single-photon emission computed tomography.European heart journal. Cardiovascular Imaging · 2024Article
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
aimThe aim of this study was to assess interassay reproducibility of myocardial perfusion gated-SPECT for calculation of end-diastolic volume (EDV), end-systolic volume (ESV), and left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF).
methodsOne hundred and fifteen consecutive patients with AF from three participating hospitals (mean age 68.9 years, 39 women) were included in the study. All patients underwent two image gated acquisitions at rest with a 30 minute interval between them. Quantitative data were obtained using the QGS and ECT software algorithms.
resultsHeart rate was similar in both studies: 74.94 +/- 15.2 vs 73.03 +/- 15.57. QGS yielded an LVEF of 54.4%/53.8%, an EDV of 100 mL/101.5 mL, and an ESV of 51 mL/52.3 mL; and ECT showed an LVEF of 63.6%/62.9%, an EDV of 125.8 mL/127.4 mL and ESV of 54.1 mL/56.3 mL. Correlation between the two acquisitions was high (>0.948) for both methods for LVEF, EDV and ESV. Regression and Bland-Altman graphics showed a good agreement between all parameters. Interassay variation coefficients for each method (QGS/ECT) were 5.29% vs 4.83% for LVEF, 4.94% vs 5.17% for EDV, and 9.94% vs 12.78% for ESV.
conclusionsInterassay reproducibility of LVEF and EDV with gated-SPECT in patients with AF is good, whereas for ESV it is suboptimal, particularly when ESV is small.
Indexed as
Identifiers
20035390What 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.